# Official Journal C 6/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 6 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5111 January 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 6

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5111 January 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 006/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2008/C 006/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4983 — Lion Capital/AS Lathouwers) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2008/C 006/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4501 — HAL/Egeria/NB) (
  1
  ) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 006/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2008/C 006/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4983 — Lion Capital/AS Lathouwers) (
  1
  )

1

6

2008/C 006/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4501 — HAL/Egeria/NB) (
  1
  )

1

6

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 006/04 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |
| 2008/C 006/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 145th meeting on 1 December 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner | 8 |
| 2008/C 006/06 | Final report of the Hearing Officer (Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner) (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) | 10 |
| 2008/C 006/07 | Summary of Commission Decision of 12 December 2006 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner) (notified under document number C(2006) 6513)
   (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 006/08 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (
  1
  ) | 16 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 006/04

Euro exchange rates

7

2008/C 006/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 145th meeting on 1 December 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner

8

2008/C 006/06

Final report of the Hearing Officer (Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner) (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

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

10

2008/C 006/07

Summary of Commission Decision of 12 December 2006 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner) (notified under document number C(2006) 6513)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document number C(2006) 6513)

1

11

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 006/08

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (
  1
  )

1

16

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 006/09 | Corrigendum to the Notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (see Annex to Council Decision 2007/871/CFSP of 20 December 2007) (OJ C 314, 22.12.2007) | 20 |

Corrigenda

2008/C 006/09

Corrigendum to the Notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (see Annex to Council Decision 2007/871/CFSP of 20 December 2007) (OJ C 314, 22.12.2007)

(OJ C 314, 22.12.2007)

20

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 6/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 15.11.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 100/07 |
| Member State | Austria |
| Region | Niederösterreich |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Spezielle RL des NÖ Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds für die Förderung von Forschung, Entwicklung und Innovation |
| Legal basis | Niederösterreichisches Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfondsgesetz 7300, Allgemeine Richtlinien des Niederösterreichischen Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant, Guarantee, Soft loan |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 9 million; overall budget: EUR 63 million |
| Intensity | 80 % |
| Duration | 1.10.2007-31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Niederösterreichischer Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds beim Amt der NÖ Landesregierung, Abteilung Wirtschaft, Tourismus und Technologie (Abt. WST3) Landhausplatz 1, Haus 14 EG, A-3109 St. Pölten |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

15.11.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 100/07

Member State

Austria

Region

Niederösterreich

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Spezielle RL des NÖ Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds für die Förderung von Forschung, Entwicklung und Innovation

Legal basis

Niederösterreichisches Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfondsgesetz 7300, Allgemeine Richtlinien des Niederösterreichischen Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant, Guarantee, Soft loan

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 9 million; overall budget: EUR 63 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration

1.10.2007-31.12.2013

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Niederösterreichischer Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds beim Amt der NÖ Landesregierung, Abteilung Wirtschaft, Tourismus und Technologie (Abt. WST3) Landhausplatz 1, Haus 14 EG, A-3109 St. Pölten

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 14.11.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 220/07 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region | Principado de Asturias |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Ayudas a empresas para proyectos de investigación durante 2007-2009, en el marco del Plan de I+D+i de Asturias |
| Legal basis | Propuesta de Resolución de 12 de junio de 2007 de la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia por la que se convocan ayudas a empresas para la ejecución de proyectos de I+D+i durante el periodo 2007-2009, dentro del marco del Plan de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (PCTI) de Asturias 2006-2009 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 18 million |
| Intensity | 80 % |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2009 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Consejería de Educación y Ciencia del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

14.11.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 220/07

Member State

Spain

Region

Principado de Asturias

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Ayudas a empresas para proyectos de investigación durante 2007-2009, en el marco del Plan de I+D+i de Asturias

Legal basis

Propuesta de Resolución de 12 de junio de 2007 de la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia por la que se convocan ayudas a empresas para la ejecución de proyectos de I+D+i durante el periodo 2007-2009, dentro del marco del Plan de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (PCTI) de Asturias 2006-2009

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 18 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration

Until 31.12.2009

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Consejería de Educación y Ciencia del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 15.11.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 226/07 |
| Member State | Austria |
| Region | Niederösterreich |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Richtlinien des Landes Niederösterreich für die Förderung von Forschung, Entwicklung und Innovation |
| Legal basis | Die Allgemeinen Grundsätze für Förderungen des Landes Niederösterreich und die Allgemeinen Richtlinien des Niederösterreichischen Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant, Soft loan |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 9 million; overall budget: EUR 63 million |
| Intensity | 80 % |
| Duration | 1.10.2007-31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Amt der NÖ Landesregierung, Abteilung Wirtschaft, Tourismus und Technologie (Abt. WST3) Landhausplatz 1, Haus 14 EG, A-3109 St. Pölten |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

15.11.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 226/07

Member State

Austria

Region

Niederösterreich

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Richtlinien des Landes Niederösterreich für die Förderung von Forschung, Entwicklung und Innovation

Legal basis

Die Allgemeinen Grundsätze für Förderungen des Landes Niederösterreich und die Allgemeinen Richtlinien des Niederösterreichischen Wirtschafts- und Tourismusfonds

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant, Soft loan

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 9 million; overall budget: EUR 63 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration

1.10.2007-31.12.2013

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Amt der NÖ Landesregierung, Abteilung Wirtschaft, Tourismus und Technologie (Abt. WST3) Landhausplatz 1, Haus 14 EG, A-3109 St. Pölten

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 3.10.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 254/07 |
| Member State | Latvia |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Grozījumi attiecībā uz atbalstu biodegvielām |
| Legal basis | Biodegvielas likums; Likums par akcīzes nodokli; MK noteikumi Nr. 712 “Kārtība, kādā piešķir valsts atbalstu ikgadējās minimāli nepieciešamās biodegvielas daudzuma ražošanai un nosaka finansiāli atbalstāmās kvotas biodegvielai” (“LV”, 149 (3307), 20.9.2005.); MK noteikumi Nr. 312 “Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2005. gada 13. septembra noteikumos Nr. 712 “Kārtība, kādā piešķir valsts atbalstu ikgadējās minimāli nepieciešamās biodegvielas daudzuma ražošanai un nosaka finansiāli atbalstāmās kvotas biodegvielai”” (“LV”, 76 (3652), 11.5.2007.) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Tax rate reduction |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 88,09 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 1.1.2007-5.8.2012 |
| Economic sectors | Manufacture of other organic basic chemicals |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Zemkopības ministrija |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

3.10.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 254/07

Member State

Latvia

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Grozījumi attiecībā uz atbalstu biodegvielām

Legal basis

Biodegvielas likums; Likums par akcīzes nodokli; MK noteikumi Nr. 712 “Kārtība, kādā piešķir valsts atbalstu ikgadējās minimāli nepieciešamās biodegvielas daudzuma ražošanai un nosaka finansiāli atbalstāmās kvotas biodegvielai” (“LV”, 149 (3307), 20.9.2005.); MK noteikumi Nr. 312 “Grozījumi Ministru kabineta 2005. gada 13. septembra noteikumos Nr. 712 “Kārtība, kādā piešķir valsts atbalstu ikgadējās minimāli nepieciešamās biodegvielas daudzuma ražošanai un nosaka finansiāli atbalstāmās kvotas biodegvielai”” (“LV”, 76 (3652), 11.5.2007.)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Tax rate reduction

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 88,09 million

Intensity

—

Duration

1.1.2007-5.8.2012

Economic sectors

Manufacture of other organic basic chemicals

Name and address of the granting authority

Zemkopības ministrija

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 7.11.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 422/07 |
| Member State | Denmark |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | F&U inden for træfyrede brændeovne og -kedler i private hjem |
| Legal basis | Den danske finanslov for 2007, der blev vedtaget den 13. december 2006 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: DKK 3,50 million in 2008 and DDK 3,55 million in 2009; overall budget: DKK 7,05 million |
| Intensity | 80 % |
| Duration | 1.2.2008-30.11.2009 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Miljøstyrelsen, Strandgade 29, DK-1401 Copenhagen |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

7.11.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 422/07

Member State

Denmark

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

F&U inden for træfyrede brændeovne og -kedler i private hjem

Legal basis

Den danske finanslov for 2007, der blev vedtaget den 13. december 2006

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: DKK 3,50 million in 2008 and DDK 3,55 million in 2009; overall budget: DKK 7,05 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration

1.2.2008-30.11.2009

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Miljøstyrelsen, Strandgade 29, DK-1401 Copenhagen

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 12.12.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 542/07 |
| Member State | Romania |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Finanţarea proiectelor CD&I conform Planului Naţional de Cercetare, Dezvoltare şi Inovare II |
| Legal basis | Decizie privind aprobarea schemei de ajutor de stat „Finanţarea proiectelor CD&I conform Planului Naţional de Cercetare, Dezvoltare şi Inovare II” |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: RON 690 million; overall budget: RON 4 825 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 2007-31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | — |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerul Educaţiei și Cercetării — Autoritatea Naţională pentru Cercetare Ştiinţifică Str. Mendeleev, nr. 21-25, cod RO-010362, sector 1, București |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

12.12.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 542/07

Member State

Romania

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Finanţarea proiectelor CD&I conform Planului Naţional de Cercetare, Dezvoltare şi Inovare II

Legal basis

Decizie privind aprobarea schemei de ajutor de stat „Finanţarea proiectelor CD&I conform Planului Naţional de Cercetare, Dezvoltare şi Inovare II”

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: RON 690 million; overall budget: RON 4 825 million

Intensity

—

Duration

2007-31.12.2013

Economic sectors

—

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerul Educaţiei și Cercetării — Autoritatea Naţională pentru Cercetare Ştiinţifică Str. Mendeleev, nr. 21-25, cod RO-010362, sector 1, București

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4983 — Lion Capital/AS Lathouwers)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 6/02)

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

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4983. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4983. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4501 — HAL/Egeria/NB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 6/03)

On 9 January 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4501. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4501. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 January 2008

(2008/C 6/04)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4662 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 161,08 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4478 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,7493 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4087 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6294 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 92,42 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,839 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,856 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 254,17 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6987 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,597 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,68 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,314 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,702 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6611 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4787 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,4429 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8926 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0994 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 375,15 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,0774 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,6621 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3465 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 837,26 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7918 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,733 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,899 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,121 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5873 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,0556 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4662

JPY

Japanese yen

161,08

DKK

Danish krone

7,4478

GBP

Pound sterling

0,7493

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4087

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6294

ISK

Iceland króna

92,42

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,839

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,856

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

254,17

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6987

PLN

Polish zloty

3,597

RON

Romanian leu

3,68

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,314

TRY

Turkish lira

1,702

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6611

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4787

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,4429

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8926

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0994

KRW

South Korean won

1 375,15

ZAR

South African rand

10,0774

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,6621

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3465

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 837,26

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7918

PHP

Philippine peso

59,733

RUB

Russian rouble

35,899

THB

Thai baht

43,121

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5873

MXN

Mexican peso

16,0556

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/8

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 145th meeting on 1 December 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner

(2008/C 6/05)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of the Merger Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of the Council and that it can be deemed to have a Community dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of the Merger Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of the Council and that it can be deemed to have a Community dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of that Regulation.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant product markets as concerns Digesters are:






  (a) | digesters for new mills; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant product markets as concerns Digesters are:

(a)

digesters for new mills;

| (b) | batch digesters for rebuild projects; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

batch digesters for rebuild projects;

| (c) | continuous digesters for rebuild projects. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

continuous digesters for rebuild projects.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant product markets as concerns Washing, delignification, bleaching equipment are:






  (a) | equipment for the brown stock washing stage for new mills; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant product markets as concerns Washing, delignification, bleaching equipment are:

(a)

equipment for the brown stock washing stage for new mills;

| (b) | equipment for the delignification stage for new mills; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

equipment for the delignification stage for new mills;

| (c) | equipment for the bleaching stage for new mills; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

equipment for the bleaching stage for new mills;

| (d) | equipment for the brown stock washing stage for rebuild projects; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

equipment for the brown stock washing stage for rebuild projects;

| (e) | equipment for the delignification stage for rebuild projects; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

equipment for the delignification stage for rebuild projects;

| (f) | equipment for the bleaching stage for rebuild projects. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

equipment for the bleaching stage for rebuild projects.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant geographic markets are worldwide for all of the above mentioned product markets. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant geographic markets are worldwide for all of the above mentioned product markets.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration is likely to result in a significant impediment to effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA for digesters for new mills. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration is likely to result in a significant impediment to effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA for digesters for new mills.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA for the following markets:






  (a) | batch digesters for rebuild projects; |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA for the following markets:

(a)

batch digesters for rebuild projects;

| (b) | continuous digesters for rebuild projects. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

continuous digesters for rebuild projects.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration is likely to result in a significant impediment to effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA for the following markets:






  (a) | equipment for the brown stock washing stage for new mills; |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration is likely to result in a significant impediment to effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA for the following markets:

(a)

equipment for the brown stock washing stage for new mills;

| (b) | equipment for the delignification stage for new mills; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

equipment for the delignification stage for new mills;

| (c) | equipment for the bleaching stage for new mills; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

equipment for the bleaching stage for new mills;

| (d) | equipment for the brown stock washing stage for rebuild projects; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

equipment for the brown stock washing stage for rebuild projects;

| (e) | equipment for the delignification stage for rebuild projects; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

equipment for the delignification stage for rebuild projects;

| (f) | equipment for the bleaching stage for rebuild projects. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

equipment for the bleaching stage for rebuild projects.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees that the competition concerns arising from the proposed concentration will not be outweighed by the potential benefits. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the competition concerns arising from the proposed concentration will not be outweighed by the potential benefits.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments concerning the Digester business of Metso are sufficient to remove the significant impediments to effective competition in the market defined in Question 5 (digesters for new mills). |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments concerning the Digester business of Metso are sufficient to remove the significant impediments to effective competition in the market defined in Question 5 (digesters for new mills).

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments concerning the WOB business of Kvaerner are sufficient to remove the significant impediments to effective competition in the markets defined in Question 7. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments concerning the WOB business of Kvaerner are sufficient to remove the significant impediments to effective competition in the markets defined in Question 7.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to full compliance with the commitments offered by the parties, and considered all commitments together, the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, within the meaning of Article 2(2), 8(2) and 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and that the proposed concentration is therefore to be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to full compliance with the commitments offered by the parties, and considered all commitments together, the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, within the meaning of Article 2(2), 8(2) and 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and that the proposed concentration is therefore to be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the EEA Agreement.

| 12. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

12.

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

---

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/10

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer

(Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner)

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

(2008/C 6/06)

On 4 April 2006, the Commission received a request for referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Merger Regulation), which was transmitted to the Member States. No Member State or EEA country competent to examine the concentration under its national competition law (Finland, Sweden, Poland, Germany and Norway) expressed its disagreement as regards the requested referral. Accordingly, the concentration was deemed to have a Community dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation and should therefore be notified to the Commission.

Subsequently, on 23 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which Metso Corporation Oy (Metso) acquires sole control, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, of parts of the undertaking Aker Kvaerner ASA (Aker Kvaerner), namely its pulping and power business, by way of purchase of shares and assets.

After examining the notification the Commission found that, even taking into account commitments entered into by Metso on 24 July and modified on 27 July 2006, the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning with the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, on 11 August 2006, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 6 November 2006, Metso offered new commitments with a view to render the concentration compatible with the common market. These commitments were subsequently modified on 8 November 2006.

In view of the modified commitments and taking into account the result of an in-depth market investigation, the relevant Commission services considered, subject to full compliance with the commitments offered, that the serious doubts had been removed and that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the parties.

No queries or submission have been made to the Hearing Officer by the parties or any other third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 4 December 2006.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/11

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 12 December 2006

declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner)

(notified under document number C(2006) 6513)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 6/07)

On 29 March 2006, the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 8(1) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found in the authentic language of the on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competiton/index_en.html

I.   SUMMARY

| 1. | This case concerns the acquisition by Metso of Aker Kvaerner's Pulping and Power business. |
| --- | --- |

1.

This case concerns the acquisition by Metso of Aker Kvaerner's Pulping and Power business.

| 2. | On 23 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which Metso Corporation Oy (‘Metso’, Finland) acquires sole control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) of parts of the undertaking Aker Kvaerner ASA (‘Aker Kvaerner’, Norway), namely Aker Kvaerner's pulping and power business (‘Kvaerner’), by way of purchase of shares and assets. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On 23 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which Metso Corporation Oy (‘Metso’, Finland) acquires sole control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the EC Merger Regulation’) of parts of the undertaking Aker Kvaerner ASA (‘Aker Kvaerner’, Norway), namely Aker Kvaerner's pulping and power business (‘Kvaerner’), by way of purchase of shares and assets.

| 3. | After its initial examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and, even taking into account commitments entered into by Metso on 24 July 2006 and modified on 27 July 2006, raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. It therefore decided on 11 August 2006 to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the EC Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

After its initial examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and, even taking into account commitments entered into by Metso on 24 July 2006 and modified on 27 July 2006, raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. It therefore decided on 11 August 2006 to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the EC Merger Regulation.

| 4. | On 6 October 2006, Metso offered new commitments with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market. These commitments were subsequently modified on 8 November 2006. |
| --- | --- |

4.

On 6 October 2006, Metso offered new commitments with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market. These commitments were subsequently modified on 8 November 2006.

| 5. | The Commission concludes that the commitments entered into by Metso remove the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified operation with the common market and declares the operation compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Articles 8(2) and 10(2) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission concludes that the commitments entered into by Metso remove the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified operation with the common market and declares the operation compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Articles 8(2) and 10(2) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

II.   THE PARTIES AND THE OPERATION

| 6. | Metso Corporation Oy (‘Metso’, Finland) is a publicly listed company, active in process engineering, development and manufacture of machinery. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Metso Corporation Oy (‘Metso’, Finland) is a publicly listed company, active in process engineering, development and manufacture of machinery.

| 7. | Aker Kvaerner ASA (‘Kvaerner’, Norway) designs and delivers machinery and equipment for chemical pulp mills. It is also a supplier of other specialized process technology ancillary to chemical recovery and power generation, including the production of power boilers used in pulp mills. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Aker Kvaerner ASA (‘Kvaerner’, Norway) designs and delivers machinery and equipment for chemical pulp mills. It is also a supplier of other specialized process technology ancillary to chemical recovery and power generation, including the production of power boilers used in pulp mills.

| 8. | The proposed transaction consists in the acquisition of 100 % of the shares in Kvaerner Pulping AB (Sweden), Aker Kvaerner Power Oy (Finland) and all assets related to Aker Kvaerner's pulping and power business, currently held by various subsidiaries of Aker Kvearner. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The proposed transaction consists in the acquisition of 100 % of the shares in Kvaerner Pulping AB (Sweden), Aker Kvaerner Power Oy (Finland) and all assets related to Aker Kvaerner's pulping and power business, currently held by various subsidiaries of Aker Kvearner.

| 9. | The transaction will confer sole control of Kvaerner to Metso and therefore constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 1(3) of the EC Merger Regulation. Although the transaction did not have a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 of the EC Merger Regulation, the Commission became competent to review the operation after a referral request of 4 April 2006 pursuant to Article 4(5) of the EC Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The transaction will confer sole control of Kvaerner to Metso and therefore constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 1(3) of the EC Merger Regulation. Although the transaction did not have a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 of the EC Merger Regulation, the Commission became competent to review the operation after a referral request of 4 April 2006 pursuant to Article 4(5) of the EC Merger Regulation.

III.   RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS

| 10. | The transaction concerns the markets for pulp mill equipment. The Commission has already dealt with pulp mill equipment markets in previous cases (2). |
| --- | --- |

10.

The transaction concerns the markets for pulp mill equipment. The Commission has already dealt with pulp mill equipment markets in previous cases (2).

1.   Separate markets for different process islands

| 11. | In line with its practice in previous cases, the decision defines separate product markets for so-called ‘process islands’. Indeed, different process stages can be distinguished in a pulp mill for which different equipment is used. |
| --- | --- |

11.

In line with its practice in previous cases, the decision defines separate product markets for so-called ‘process islands’. Indeed, different process stages can be distinguished in a pulp mill for which different equipment is used.

| 12. | The following table shows which process islands the three leading players in the pulp mill equipment market (Andritz, Metso and Kvaerner) offer: |
| --- | --- |

12.

The following table shows which process islands the three leading players in the pulp mill equipment market (Andritz, Metso and Kvaerner) offer:

Image

| 13. | The merging parties' activities overlap only in four process islands, namely in the field of digesters (‘cooking’ stage, where wood is mixed with chemicals and heated with steam in order to dissolve the lignin), equipment for brown stock washing (washing and cleaning of chemical residues), for oxygen delignification (further delignification with oxygen) and for bleaching (bleaching of the pulp which is still brown after the delignification stage). |
| --- | --- |

13.

The merging parties' activities overlap only in four process islands, namely in the field of digesters (‘cooking’ stage, where wood is mixed with chemicals and heated with steam in order to dissolve the lignin), equipment for brown stock washing (washing and cleaning of chemical residues), for oxygen delignification (further delignification with oxygen) and for bleaching (bleaching of the pulp which is still brown after the delignification stage).

| 14. | For each of these stages, suppliers typically offer process islands, that is a ‘bundle’ of equipment which is assembled by the supplier (e.g. washers plus tanks, pipes and mixers for the washing stage). When it comes to replacing major parts of the mill with a view to upgrading the mill's capacity, most customers buy such integrated process island for the respective stage. The Commission found that also customers of new mills, although often combining several process islands, invite tenders for separate process islands. |
| --- | --- |

14.

For each of these stages, suppliers typically offer process islands, that is a ‘bundle’ of equipment which is assembled by the supplier (e.g. washers plus tanks, pipes and mixers for the washing stage). When it comes to replacing major parts of the mill with a view to upgrading the mill's capacity, most customers buy such integrated process island for the respective stage. The Commission found that also customers of new mills, although often combining several process islands, invite tenders for separate process islands.

2.   Process islands for new mills v process islands for rebuild projects

| 15. | Nevertheless, the Commission's tender analysis showed that separate markets should be defined for equipment for the process islands used in new mills on the one hand and for rebuild projects on the other hand. Indeed, the size of a typical ‘package’ of different process islands is larger for new mills than for rebuild projects, where in most cases only one island is bought. Know how involved in new mill projects is also different from rebuild projects, not the least since it involves more planning and engineering activities and more know how on ‘plant building’ than process islands for rebuild projects. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Nevertheless, the Commission's tender analysis showed that separate markets should be defined for equipment for the process islands used in new mills on the one hand and for rebuild projects on the other hand. Indeed, the size of a typical ‘package’ of different process islands is larger for new mills than for rebuild projects, where in most cases only one island is bought. Know how involved in new mill projects is also different from rebuild projects, not the least since it involves more planning and engineering activities and more know how on ‘plant building’ than process islands for rebuild projects.

| 16. | It should be noted that the Commission's market investigation has not supported the definition of a market for ‘entire new pulp mills’. The large majority of new mill customers has not bought a full mill but chosen to buy separate process islands. Only some of the customers indicated that they planned to buy a full new mill from one supplier in the future (post-merger) when there will be two suppliers able to offer products for an entire mill. Most customers stated that they will continue to buy also new mills in ‘packages’ from different suppliers. It appears that these customers believe that this enables them to choose the best product for every island. |
| --- | --- |

16.

It should be noted that the Commission's market investigation has not supported the definition of a market for ‘entire new pulp mills’. The large majority of new mill customers has not bought a full mill but chosen to buy separate process islands. Only some of the customers indicated that they planned to buy a full new mill from one supplier in the future (post-merger) when there will be two suppliers able to offer products for an entire mill. Most customers stated that they will continue to buy also new mills in ‘packages’ from different suppliers. It appears that these customers believe that this enables them to choose the best product for every island.

3.   Separate markets for ‘batch’ and ‘continuous’ new mill digesters

| 17. | The Commission also concluded that the two main types of digesters used in the cooking process, i.e. ‘batch’ and ‘continuous’ digesters (3), are in competition with each other, at least as concerns digesters for new mills (4). Indeed, a significant part of customers invite tenders that do not specify the digester type when tendering for a digester for a new mill. Although some ‘new mill’ customers have a preference for continuous digesters and although there is another customer group that always chooses batch digesters, many customers consider both types of digesters without a pre-defined preference for either type. For this customer group, both digester types exert directly competitive pressure on each other (5). |
| --- | --- |

17.

The Commission also concluded that the two main types of digesters used in the cooking process, i.e. ‘batch’ and ‘continuous’ digesters (3), are in competition with each other, at least as concerns digesters for new mills (4). Indeed, a significant part of customers invite tenders that do not specify the digester type when tendering for a digester for a new mill. Although some ‘new mill’ customers have a preference for continuous digesters and although there is another customer group that always chooses batch digesters, many customers consider both types of digesters without a pre-defined preference for either type. For this customer group, both digester types exert directly competitive pressure on each other (5).

4.   No separate markets for service and maintenance

| 18. | As regards service and maintenance work, the decision concludes that there is no or only negligible competition in the field of the competitors' service & maintenance business. While pulp mill equipment is also sold to customers who want to replace minor parts of a broken machine or a process island, the Commission's market investigation showed that for this part of the business (also referred to as ‘stay-in-business’ replacement), suppliers do not compete with each other, since in most of these cases customers usually turn to the original supplier of the product. |
| --- | --- |

18.

As regards service and maintenance work, the decision concludes that there is no or only negligible competition in the field of the competitors' service & maintenance business. While pulp mill equipment is also sold to customers who want to replace minor parts of a broken machine or a process island, the Commission's market investigation showed that for this part of the business (also referred to as ‘stay-in-business’ replacement), suppliers do not compete with each other, since in most of these cases customers usually turn to the original supplier of the product.

5.   Conclusion on product markets

| 19. | The decision therefore defines the following relevant product markets (6):






  I. | Digesters:






  1. | Digesters for new mills |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.

The decision therefore defines the following relevant product markets (6):

I.

Digesters:

1.

Digesters for new mills

| 2. | Batch digesters for rebuilds |
| --- | --- |

2.

Batch digesters for rebuilds

| 3. | Continuous digesters for rebuilds. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Continuous digesters for rebuilds.

| II. | WOB equipment:






  4. | Equipment for the brown stock washing stage for new mills |
| --- | --- | --- |

II.

WOB equipment:

4.

Equipment for the brown stock washing stage for new mills

| 5. | Equipment for the delignification stage for new mills |
| --- | --- |

5.

Equipment for the delignification stage for new mills

| 6. | Equipment for the bleaching stage for new mills |
| --- | --- |

6.

Equipment for the bleaching stage for new mills

| 7. | Equipment for the brown stock washing stage for rebuild projects |
| --- | --- |

7.

Equipment for the brown stock washing stage for rebuild projects

| 8. | Equipment for the delignification stage for rebuild projects |
| --- | --- |

8.

Equipment for the delignification stage for rebuild projects

| 9. | Equipment for the bleaching stage for rebuild projects. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Equipment for the bleaching stage for rebuild projects.

IV.   THE RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS

| 20. | The decision defines all affected markets as world-wide in scope. Market conditions are similar world wide and customers from all regions in the world invite for tenders and actually buy pulp mill equipment on a world-wide basis. |
| --- | --- |

20.

The decision defines all affected markets as world-wide in scope. Market conditions are similar world wide and customers from all regions in the world invite for tenders and actually buy pulp mill equipment on a world-wide basis.

V.   COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

1.   Digesters for new mills

| 21. | In the market for digesters for new mills, Kvaerner and Metso would hold around [60-70] % of the market, with Kvaerner's continuous cooking technology accounting for approximately [50-60] % and Metso's batch digester accounting for around 14 % of the sales value between 2001 and 2005. Andritz has around [30-40] % of the market. The Canadian company GL&V is also present in the market and takes part in tenders for batch digesters. |
| --- | --- |

21.

In the market for digesters for new mills, Kvaerner and Metso would hold around [60-70] % of the market, with Kvaerner's continuous cooking technology accounting for approximately [50-60] % and Metso's batch digester accounting for around 14 % of the sales value between 2001 and 2005. Andritz has around [30-40] % of the market. The Canadian company GL&V is also present in the market and takes part in tenders for batch digesters.

| 22. | The merger would therefore reduce the number of eligible suppliers for digesters for new mills from three to two, with a market share of the parties of more than [60-70] %. Such a high market position in a very concentrated market is in itself indicative for a dominant position on the digester market. The merger is therefore likely to reduce competition in the new mill digester market. |
| --- | --- |

22.

The merger would therefore reduce the number of eligible suppliers for digesters for new mills from three to two, with a market share of the parties of more than [60-70] %. Such a high market position in a very concentrated market is in itself indicative for a dominant position on the digester market. The merger is therefore likely to reduce competition in the new mill digester market.

2.   Equipment for washing, oxygen delignification and bleaching

Dominant position in the WOB markets

| 23. | The Commission's market investigation has also shown that the transaction would lead to high market shares between [40-50] % to [80-90] % in the markets for equipment for washing, oxygen delignification and bleaching (‘WOB’), both for new mills and for rebuild projects. Andritz, with market shares between [40-50] % and [20-30] %, would remain the main competitor, while the next largest competitor, GL&V, would only hold market shares of [0-10] % to [0-10] % in the rebuild market and less than [0-10] % in the new mill market. The merger would therefore significantly reduce the number of competitors in the field of WOB equipment, bringing together the two market leaders in this field, who are the only suppliers of a wash press technology which is widely accepted by all main customers world-wide. Not the least because GL&V's washing technology is perceived by many customers as ‘outdated’ and too expensive, some respondents to the Commission's market test considered the transaction as a ‘3 to 2’ merger, possible allowing the parties to increase prices in this field of equipment. |
| --- | --- |

23.

The Commission's market investigation has also shown that the transaction would lead to high market shares between [40-50] % to [80-90] % in the markets for equipment for washing, oxygen delignification and bleaching (‘WOB’), both for new mills and for rebuild projects. Andritz, with market shares between [40-50] % and [20-30] %, would remain the main competitor, while the next largest competitor, GL&V, would only hold market shares of [0-10] % to [0-10] % in the rebuild market and less than [0-10] % in the new mill market. The merger would therefore significantly reduce the number of competitors in the field of WOB equipment, bringing together the two market leaders in this field, who are the only suppliers of a wash press technology which is widely accepted by all main customers world-wide. Not the least because GL&V's washing technology is perceived by many customers as ‘outdated’ and too expensive, some respondents to the Commission's market test considered the transaction as a ‘3 to 2’ merger, possible allowing the parties to increase prices in this field of equipment.

| 24. | It should, however, be noted, that for those customers within the ‘new mill’ market who plan in the future to buy an entire mill from one supplier, the effect of the merger is rather positive. For those customers Andritz has currently a monopoly, and the merger will enable Metso/Kvaerner to compete with Andritz for the supply of such full mills. The competition concerns brought about by the creation of a dominant position in the field of WOB equipment therefore relates only to those customers within the new mill customer market who prefer buying in packages. For this group of new mill customers and for rebuild customers, the merger will create a dominant supplier with high market shares for WOB equipment, with only two competitors left (Andritz and GL&V), one of which (GL&V) has only achieved limited sales over the last five years. In addition the market has high entry barriers, due to the know-how and patents needed to manufacture pulp mill equipment and the importance of reputation and reference products. |
| --- | --- |

24.

It should, however, be noted, that for those customers within the ‘new mill’ market who plan in the future to buy an entire mill from one supplier, the effect of the merger is rather positive. For those customers Andritz has currently a monopoly, and the merger will enable Metso/Kvaerner to compete with Andritz for the supply of such full mills. The competition concerns brought about by the creation of a dominant position in the field of WOB equipment therefore relates only to those customers within the new mill customer market who prefer buying in packages. For this group of new mill customers and for rebuild customers, the merger will create a dominant supplier with high market shares for WOB equipment, with only two competitors left (Andritz and GL&V), one of which (GL&V) has only achieved limited sales over the last five years. In addition the market has high entry barriers, due to the know-how and patents needed to manufacture pulp mill equipment and the importance of reputation and reference products.

No elimination by mitigating factors

| 25. | The Commission has also verified to what extent the anti-competitive effects of the merger could be mitigated by other factors. Some large customers indeed claimed that they had buyer power vis-à-vis their suppliers. Most customers stressed also that the merger was not only negative for them, but entailed also positive effects for their business. Customers mentioned that the merging parties' larger product portfolio would facilitate to buy packages of more process islands from one single supplier. Buying packages (e.g. digester and WOB equipment together) helps customers to save ‘interface costs’ which can result from the adjustment of various process islands from different suppliers. Combining several process islands can also help to avoid conflicts in liability cases. The majority of customers also expect that the merger will be beneficial for the quality of the products supplied by the merging parties. They argue that combining the complementary knowledge of Metso and Kvaerner (e.g. Metso's and Kvaerner's different cooking technologies or Metso's knowledge on the fibreline with Kvaerner's knowledge on the recovery part) will stimulate innovation. |
| --- | --- |

25.

The Commission has also verified to what extent the anti-competitive effects of the merger could be mitigated by other factors. Some large customers indeed claimed that they had buyer power vis-à-vis their suppliers. Most customers stressed also that the merger was not only negative for them, but entailed also positive effects for their business. Customers mentioned that the merging parties' larger product portfolio would facilitate to buy packages of more process islands from one single supplier. Buying packages (e.g. digester and WOB equipment together) helps customers to save ‘interface costs’ which can result from the adjustment of various process islands from different suppliers. Combining several process islands can also help to avoid conflicts in liability cases. The majority of customers also expect that the merger will be beneficial for the quality of the products supplied by the merging parties. They argue that combining the complementary knowledge of Metso and Kvaerner (e.g. Metso's and Kvaerner's different cooking technologies or Metso's knowledge on the fibreline with Kvaerner's knowledge on the recovery part) will stimulate innovation.

| 26. | While these factors might to some extent mitigate the negative impact of the transaction in the cooking and WOB markets, the Commission takes the view that they are not likely to entirely neutralise or eliminate the anti-competitive effects from the merger on customers. Indeed, most customers confirmed that the positive effects do not outweigh the possible harm through the merger and that they would prefer a divestiture of the overlapping businesses. |
| --- | --- |

26.

While these factors might to some extent mitigate the negative impact of the transaction in the cooking and WOB markets, the Commission takes the view that they are not likely to entirely neutralise or eliminate the anti-competitive effects from the merger on customers. Indeed, most customers confirmed that the positive effects do not outweigh the possible harm through the merger and that they would prefer a divestiture of the overlapping businesses.

| 27. | The Commission's investigation therefore confirmed that the merger will lead to a significant impediment of competition in the market for digesters for new mills and for WOB equipment sold to new mill and rebuild customers. |
| --- | --- |

27.

The Commission's investigation therefore confirmed that the merger will lead to a significant impediment of competition in the market for digesters for new mills and for WOB equipment sold to new mill and rebuild customers.

VI.   COMMITMENTS

1.   The parties' commitment proposal

| 28. | The parties offered commitments on 6 October 2006 in order to remove the Commission's serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the common market. The commitments, which were modified on 9 November 2006, concern the WOB and the cooking markets: |
| --- | --- |

28.

The parties offered commitments on 6 October 2006 in order to remove the Commission's serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the common market. The commitments, which were modified on 9 November 2006, concern the WOB and the cooking markets:

Full divestiture of Kvaerner's WOB business

| 29. | Metso proposes to divest Kvaerner's entire WOB business to the Canadian competitor GL&V. The divestiture includes all tangible and intangible assets related to Kvaerner's WOB business, including all know how, intellectual property rights, machines, ongoing contracts and key personnel. Metso has already entered into a binding Sale and Purchase Agreement on the WOB business with the Canadian competitor GL&V (‘fix-it-first’ solution). |
| --- | --- |

29.

Metso proposes to divest Kvaerner's entire WOB business to the Canadian competitor GL&V. The divestiture includes all tangible and intangible assets related to Kvaerner's WOB business, including all know how, intellectual property rights, machines, ongoing contracts and key personnel. Metso has already entered into a binding Sale and Purchase Agreement on the WOB business with the Canadian competitor GL&V (‘fix-it-first’ solution).

Divestiture with a back license for Metso's digester business

| 30. | Metso also commits to divest the whole of its batch cooking business to the GL&V. This divestiture will enable the acquirer not only to use a license for Metso's ‘SuperBatch’ cooking technology, but to dispose of all tangible and intangible assets forming the batch cooking business currently held by Metso, including all know how, intellectual property rights, machines, ongoing contracts and key personnel. Unlike for the WOB business, the commitments provide for a back-licence for the SuperBatch technology to Metso, enabling Metso to offer its technology in parallel to GL&V. Metso has also already entered into a binding Sale and Purchase Agreement with GL&V for the cooking business. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Metso also commits to divest the whole of its batch cooking business to the GL&V. This divestiture will enable the acquirer not only to use a license for Metso's ‘SuperBatch’ cooking technology, but to dispose of all tangible and intangible assets forming the batch cooking business currently held by Metso, including all know how, intellectual property rights, machines, ongoing contracts and key personnel. Unlike for the WOB business, the commitments provide for a back-licence for the SuperBatch technology to Metso, enabling Metso to offer its technology in parallel to GL&V. Metso has also already entered into a binding Sale and Purchase Agreement with GL&V for the cooking business.

2.   Assessment of the commitment proposal

WOB business

| 31. | The Commission considers that the divestment of Kvaerner's WOB business can be regarded as the divestiture of a viable business, since it comprises not only the divestiture of some patents or machines but of all elements forming Kvaerner's WOB business, including ongoing contracts and key personnel. The Commission has also come to the conclusion that GL&V is a suitable purchaser for the divested business, since it is already active in the WOB business and since GL&V is the only remaining competitor offering equipment for many different process islands of a pulp mill apart from the merging parties and Andritz. Although GL&V's sales of new equipment in the WOB area were limited between 2000 and 2003 due to previous financial problems of the respective business (which GL&V had taken over in 2000), GL&V has fully re-entered the markets for pulping equipment for rebuilds and new mills in 2003 and increased its market share significantly since then. GL&V therefore has both the incentives and the ability to become a credible ‘third player’ in the markets for pulp mill equipment though the acquisition of Kvaerner's and Metso's divested businesses. |
| --- | --- |

31.

The Commission considers that the divestment of Kvaerner's WOB business can be regarded as the divestiture of a viable business, since it comprises not only the divestiture of some patents or machines but of all elements forming Kvaerner's WOB business, including ongoing contracts and key personnel. The Commission has also come to the conclusion that GL&V is a suitable purchaser for the divested business, since it is already active in the WOB business and since GL&V is the only remaining competitor offering equipment for many different process islands of a pulp mill apart from the merging parties and Andritz. Although GL&V's sales of new equipment in the WOB area were limited between 2000 and 2003 due to previous financial problems of the respective business (which GL&V had taken over in 2000), GL&V has fully re-entered the markets for pulping equipment for rebuilds and new mills in 2003 and increased its market share significantly since then. GL&V therefore has both the incentives and the ability to become a credible ‘third player’ in the markets for pulp mill equipment though the acquisition of Kvaerner's and Metso's divested businesses.

Digester business

| 32. | The Commission has found that a full divestiture of Metso's batch digester business without any possibility for Metso to stay in the business is not the most adequate solution for the digester market. Indeed, in the Commission's market test of the remedies, customers almost unanimously voted for a shared license for the SuperBatch technology. This is because any remedy in the field of digesters effects different customers differently. Customers fear that a complete divestiture of the SuperBatch technology to GL&V would create a ‘monopoly’ for those customers who are bound to use batch digesters. It should in this context be recalled that GL&V, although its sales in the field of digesters are de minimis today, currently already offers its own batch digester technology and takes part in tenders for new mills. A full divestiture would therefore effectively reduce the number of digester suppliers from 2 to 1. Customers of large new mills who want to buy very large packages or even a full mill from one supplier could also be negatively affected, since GL&V does not offer full mills and does not have an equally broad portfolio of pulp mill equipment as Andritz or Mesto/Kvaerner. A complete divestiture would also necessarily affect rebuild customers, which would be forced to change their supplier. Accordingly, the present commitments provide for a back-licence for the SuperBatch technology to Metso, enabling Metso to offer its technology in parallel to GL&V. |
| --- | --- |

32.

The Commission has found that a full divestiture of Metso's batch digester business without any possibility for Metso to stay in the business is not the most adequate solution for the digester market. Indeed, in the Commission's market test of the remedies, customers almost unanimously voted for a shared license for the SuperBatch technology. This is because any remedy in the field of digesters effects different customers differently. Customers fear that a complete divestiture of the SuperBatch technology to GL&V would create a ‘monopoly’ for those customers who are bound to use batch digesters. It should in this context be recalled that GL&V, although its sales in the field of digesters are de minimis today, currently already offers its own batch digester technology and takes part in tenders for new mills. A full divestiture would therefore effectively reduce the number of digester suppliers from 2 to 1. Customers of large new mills who want to buy very large packages or even a full mill from one supplier could also be negatively affected, since GL&V does not offer full mills and does not have an equally broad portfolio of pulp mill equipment as Andritz or Mesto/Kvaerner. A complete divestiture would also necessarily affect rebuild customers, which would be forced to change their supplier. Accordingly, the present commitments provide for a back-licence for the SuperBatch technology to Metso, enabling Metso to offer its technology in parallel to GL&V.

No anticompetitive effects through coordination

| 33. | The proposed divestiture remedy will also address any potential increase of the risk of coordination in the pulp mill equipment markets, since it will largely maintain the market structure with three eligible suppliers. The divestiture package will strengthen GL&V significantly and enable GL&V to take over Kvaerner's role as a third player which will exercise competitive pressure on the two other suppliers in situations. Although GL&V's ability to exercise competitive pressure on Andritz and Metso/Kvaerner in projects in which require the supply of a full or almost full pulp mill might be limited, the merger will not negatively affect this situation. Today, Andritz has a monopoly for such projects. The change brought about by the merger is therefore rather positive, since there will be two suppliers competing for ‘full mill’ projects in the future, which can be regarded as a clear improvement of the competitive structure. |
| --- | --- |

33.

The proposed divestiture remedy will also address any potential increase of the risk of coordination in the pulp mill equipment markets, since it will largely maintain the market structure with three eligible suppliers. The divestiture package will strengthen GL&V significantly and enable GL&V to take over Kvaerner's role as a third player which will exercise competitive pressure on the two other suppliers in situations. Although GL&V's ability to exercise competitive pressure on Andritz and Metso/Kvaerner in projects in which require the supply of a full or almost full pulp mill might be limited, the merger will not negatively affect this situation. Today, Andritz has a monopoly for such projects. The change brought about by the merger is therefore rather positive, since there will be two suppliers competing for ‘full mill’ projects in the future, which can be regarded as a clear improvement of the competitive structure.

| 34. | The commitments will therefore remove the entire competitive overlap between the notifying parties, thereby creating conditions of competition comparable to those prevailing pre-merger. |
| --- | --- |

34.

The commitments will therefore remove the entire competitive overlap between the notifying parties, thereby creating conditions of competition comparable to those prevailing pre-merger.

VII.   CONCLUSION

| 35. | The commitments as proposed by the Notifying Party modify the notified concentration to such an extent that the serious doubts of the Commission as to the compatibility of that concentration with the common market are removed and that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it. Subject to full compliance by Metso with the commitments offered, the concentration is therefore declared compatible with the Common Market and the EEA Agreement, in accordance Article 8(2) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

35.

The commitments as proposed by the Notifying Party modify the notified concentration to such an extent that the serious doubts of the Commission as to the compatibility of that concentration with the common market are removed and that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it. Subject to full compliance by Metso with the commitments offered, the concentration is therefore declared compatible with the Common Market and the EEA Agreement, in accordance Article 8(2) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

(2)  See e.g. Cases COMP/M.4092 — Andritz/Küsters; COMP/M.1930 — Ahlström/Andritz; IV/M.1431 — Ahlström/Kvaerner.

(3)  In batch digesters, pulp is cooked in ‘batches’ by putting wood chips into a batch digester, together with the necessary chemicals and cooking it over a period of one or more hours. When the process is complete, the entire pulp is then pumped to the next stage, and the batch digester has to be filled again. Unlike in the ‘sequential’ process of a batch digester, in a continuous digester there is a steady flow of wood chips and chemicals into the continuous digester where it is cooked and continuously discharged from the outlet end of the digester.

(4)  The investigation showed that for rebuild projects, customers choose in most of the cases the same digester type as before and have never replaced a continuous digester by a batch digester.

(5)  Although theoretically three different markets for the three customer groups could be defined, it is more appropriate not to further subdivide the digester market, because boundaries between the different customer groups are blurred. In the competitive assessment of the decision, the effects on all three customer segments are considered.

(6)  The Commission has also assessed whether a vertically affected market for automation (e.g. process island automation systems, pulp mill equipment automation or industrial process automation) should be defined. This question could ultimately be left open for the purpose of the present decision, since no competition concerns would arise under either scenario.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/16

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 6/08)

| Aid No | XS 292/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Cyprus |
| Region | Δεν εφαρμόζεται (Den efarmozetai) |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Πρόγραμμα «ΕUROSTARS» (Programma «EUROSTARS») |
| Legal basis | Απόφαση Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου Ιδρύματος Προώθησης Έρευνας ημερομηνίας 2/10/2007 (Apofasi Dioikitikoy Symboylioy Idrymatos Proothisis Ereynas imerominias 2/10/2007) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Budget | Annual budget: CYP 0,29 million; overall budget: — |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 30.10.2007 |
| Duration | 30.6.2008 |
| Objective | Small and medium-sized enterprises |
| Economic sectors | Research and development |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ίδρυμα Προώθησης Έρευνας |
| Γωνία Απελλή και Νιρβάνα |
| Αγ. Ομολογητές |
| 1683 Λευκωσία |
| Κύπρος |

Aid No

XS 292/07

Member State

Cyprus

Region

Δεν εφαρμόζεται (Den efarmozetai)

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Πρόγραμμα «ΕUROSTARS» (Programma «EUROSTARS»)

Legal basis

Απόφαση Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου Ιδρύματος Προώθησης Έρευνας ημερομηνίας 2/10/2007 (Apofasi Dioikitikoy Symboylioy Idrymatos Proothisis Ereynas imerominias 2/10/2007)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Budget

Annual budget: CYP 0,29 million; overall budget: —

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

30.10.2007

Duration

30.6.2008

Objective

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Economic sectors

Research and development

Name and address of the granting authority

Ίδρυμα Προώθησης Έρευνας

Γωνία Απελλή και Νιρβάνα

Αγ. Ομολογητές

1683 Λευκωσία

Κύπρος

| (Idryma Proothisis Ereynas |
| --- |
| Gonia Apelli kai Nirbana |
| Ag. Omologites |
| 1683 Leykosia |
| Kypros) |

(Idryma Proothisis Ereynas

Gonia Apelli kai Nirbana

Ag. Omologites

1683 Leykosia

Kypros)

| Aid No | XS 294/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Regione Marche |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Legge 27 ottobre 1994, n. 598, art. 11. Definizione dei criteri e delle modalità per la concessione delle agevolazioni a favore delle piccole e medie imprese artigiane ed industriali per la realizzazione di progetti di ricerca industriale e di sviluppo precompetitivo |
| Legal basis | DGR 728/07 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 54 million; overall budget: — |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 20.10.2007 |
| Duration | 31.12.2008 |
| Objective | Small and medium-sized enterprises |
| Economic sectors | All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Regione Marche |
| PF Innovazione Ricerca/PF Politiche comunitarie |
| Via Tiziano, 44 |
| I-60125 Ancona |

Aid No

XS 294/07

Member State

Italy

Region

Regione Marche

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Legge 27 ottobre 1994, n. 598, art. 11. Definizione dei criteri e delle modalità per la concessione delle agevolazioni a favore delle piccole e medie imprese artigiane ed industriali per la realizzazione di progetti di ricerca industriale e di sviluppo precompetitivo

Legal basis

DGR 728/07

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 54 million; overall budget: —

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

20.10.2007

Duration

31.12.2008

Objective

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Economic sectors

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Name and address of the granting authority

Regione Marche

PF Innovazione Ricerca/PF Politiche comunitarie

Via Tiziano, 44

I-60125 Ancona

| Aid No | XS 295/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | Północno-zachodni — woj. Zachodniopomorskie |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | ESPOL Sp. z o. o. |
| Legal basis | 1) | Art. 6 ustawy z dnia 29 lipca 2005 r. o niektórych formach wspierania działalności innowacyjnej (Dz.U. nr 179, poz. 1484, z późn. zm.) |

Aid No

XS 295/07

Member State

Poland

Region

Północno-zachodni — woj. Zachodniopomorskie

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

ESPOL Sp. z o. o.

Legal basis

1)

Art. 6 ustawy z dnia 29 lipca 2005 r. o niektórych formach wspierania działalności innowacyjnej (Dz.U. nr 179, poz. 1484, z późn. zm.)

| 2) | Umowa kredytu technologicznego nr 29/14/07/1071 udzielonego ze środków Funduszu Kredytu Technologicznego zawarta w dniu 30.10.2007 r. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Umowa kredytu technologicznego nr 29/14/07/1071 udzielonego ze środków Funduszu Kredytu Technologicznego zawarta w dniu 30.10.2007 r.

Type of measure

Individual aid

Budget

Annual budget: —; overall budget: EUR 0,20693651 million

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

30.10.2007

Duration

30.9.2012

Objective

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Economic sectors

All sectors eligible for aid to SMEs

Name and address of the granting authority

| Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego |
| --- |
| Al. Jerozolimskie 7 |
| PL-00-955 Warszawa |

Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego

Al. Jerozolimskie 7

PL-00-955 Warszawa

| Aid No | XS 297/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | England |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Rural Development Programme for England — measure code 123 (Adding value to agricultural and forestry products) |
| Legal basis | Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972
  Article 4 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Budget | Annual budget: GBP 7 million; overall budget: — |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 22.11.2007 |
| Duration | 30.6.2008 |
| Objective | Small and medium-sized enterprises |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture, hunting and forestry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs |
| Nobel House |
| 17 Smith Square |
| London SW1P 3JR |
| United Kingdom |

Aid No

XS 297/07

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

England

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Rural Development Programme for England — measure code 123 (Adding value to agricultural and forestry products)

Legal basis

Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972

Article 4 of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Budget

Annual budget: GBP 7 million; overall budget: —

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

22.11.2007

Duration

30.6.2008

Objective

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Economic sectors

Agriculture, hunting and forestry

Name and address of the granting authority

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Nobel House

17 Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

United Kingdom

| Aid No | XS 298/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Lombardia |
| Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid | Interventi relativi ai prodotti non compresi nell'allegato I del trattato CE in materia di:






  — | promozione dell'innovazione delle fasi di produzione, trasformazione e commercializzazione, |

Aid No

XS 298/07

Member State

Italy

Region

Lombardia

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid

Interventi relativi ai prodotti non compresi nell'allegato I del trattato CE in materia di:

—

promozione dell'innovazione delle fasi di produzione, trasformazione e commercializzazione,

| — | incremento del valore aggiunto delle produzioni, incentivando nuovi processi e tecnologie per lo sviluppo di nuovi prodotti e sistemi di qualità e per il migliore impiego dei sottoprodotti delle lavorazioni, |
| --- | --- |

—

incremento del valore aggiunto delle produzioni, incentivando nuovi processi e tecnologie per lo sviluppo di nuovi prodotti e sistemi di qualità e per il migliore impiego dei sottoprodotti delle lavorazioni,

| — | razionalizzazione, organizzazione ed integrazione dei processi di trasformazione e/o commercializzazione dei prodotti, |
| --- | --- |

—

razionalizzazione, organizzazione ed integrazione dei processi di trasformazione e/o commercializzazione dei prodotti,

| — | incentivazione di nuovi sbocchi di mercato, |
| --- | --- |

—

incentivazione di nuovi sbocchi di mercato,

| — | adeguamento delle condizioni sanitarie ed igieniche, |
| --- | --- |

—

adeguamento delle condizioni sanitarie ed igieniche,

| — | protezione dell'ambiente |
| --- | --- |

—

protezione dell'ambiente

Legal basis

| — | Delibera di Giunta regionale n. VIII/3910, del 27 dicembre 2006, «Programma di sviluppo rurale 2007-2013 [Regolamento (CE) n. 1698/2005]», |
| --- | --- |

—

Delibera di Giunta regionale n. VIII/3910, del 27 dicembre 2006, «Programma di sviluppo rurale 2007-2013 [Regolamento (CE) n. 1698/2005]»,

| — | Legge regionale n. 7, del 7 febbraio 2000, «Norme per gli interventi regionali in agricoltura», art. 8 «Trasformazione e commercializzazione» |
| --- | --- |

—

Legge regionale n. 7, del 7 febbraio 2000, «Norme per gli interventi regionali in agricoltura», art. 8 «Trasformazione e commercializzazione»

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 20 million; overall budget: —

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

15.12.2007

Duration

31.12.2013

Objective

Small and medium-sized enterprises

Economic sectors

Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry, Other Manufacturing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Regione Lombardia |
| --- |
| Direzione generale Agricoltura |
| Via Pola, 12/14 |
| I-20124 Milano |

Regione Lombardia

Direzione generale Agricoltura

Via Pola, 12/14

I-20124 Milano

---

Corrigenda

| 11.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/20

---

Corrigendum to the Notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (see Annex to Council Decision 2007/871/CFSP of 20 December 2007)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 314 of 22 December 2007
  )

(2008/C 6/09)

In the Contents (third page of the cover) and on page 42 in the title and in the first sentence:

for:

‘... Council Decision 2007/871/CSFP ...’,

read:

read:

‘... Council Decision 2007/868/EC ...’.

---