# Official Journal C 76/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.076.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 76 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5515 March 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.076.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 76

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5515 March 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 076/01 | Commission Opinion of 14 March 2012 on interim measures taken by the government of Germany in respect of life jacket lights of model Rescue Dan M1 manufactured by Daniamant ApS in the Kingdom of Denmark (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

2012/C 076/01

Commission Opinion of 14 March 2012 on interim measures taken by the government of Germany in respect of life jacket lights of model Rescue Dan M1 manufactured by Daniamant ApS in the Kingdom of Denmark (
  1
  )

1

1

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 076/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2012/C 076/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6473 — Sun Capital/Elix) (
  1
  ) | 6 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 076/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

4

2012/C 076/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6473 — Sun Capital/Elix) (
  1
  )

1

6

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2012/C 076/04 | Council Act of 8 March 2012 extending the term of office of the Director of Europol | 7 |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 076/05 | Euro exchange rates | 8 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2012/C 076/06 | No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement | 9 |
| 2012/C 076/07 | No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement | 10 |
| 2012/C 076/08 | State aid — Decision to raise no objections | 11 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2012/C 076/04

Council Act of 8 March 2012 extending the term of office of the Director of Europol

7

European Commission

2012/C 076/05

Euro exchange rates

8

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2012/C 076/06

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

9

2012/C 076/07

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

10

2012/C 076/08

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

11

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2012/C 076/09 | Notice of open competitions | 12 |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2012/C 076/10 | Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-1/12) | 13 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2012/C 076/09

Notice of open competitions

12

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2012/C 076/10

Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-1/12)

13

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 14 March 2012

on interim measures taken by the government of Germany in respect of life jacket lights of model Rescue Dan M1 manufactured by Daniamant ApS in the Kingdom of Denmark

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 76/01

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on Marine Equipment (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Annex A.1 of the above mentioned directive, the applicable performance and construction requirements for life jacket lights are laid down in Resolution MSC.48(66) (LSA Code) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the applicable testing standards for the said equipment are laid down in Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Annex A.1 of the above mentioned directive, the applicable performance and construction requirements for life jacket lights are laid down in Resolution MSC.48(66) (LSA Code) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the applicable testing standards for the said equipment are laid down in Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO.

| (2) | By letter of 25 March 2011 the German authorities (the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, hereinafter ‘BSH’) informed the Commission of interim measures taken by this Authority in respect of life jacket lights of model Rescue Dan M1 (hereinafter, ‘the life jacket lights’) manufactured by Daniamant ApS in the Kingdom of Denmark (hereinafter, ‘the manufacturer’), whereby the life jacket lights belonging to the batches No FP08 (2 000 pieces) and No BA139 (1 000 pieces) were recalled from the German market on grounds of failure to comply with Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter of 25 March 2011 the German authorities (the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, hereinafter ‘BSH’) informed the Commission of interim measures taken by this Authority in respect of life jacket lights of model Rescue Dan M1 (hereinafter, ‘the life jacket lights’) manufactured by Daniamant ApS in the Kingdom of Denmark (hereinafter, ‘the manufacturer’), whereby the life jacket lights belonging to the batches No FP08 (2 000 pieces) and No BA139 (1 000 pieces) were recalled from the German market on grounds of failure to comply with Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC.

| (3) | The letter was accompanied by a detailed market surveillance report dated 2 March 2011 and a copy of (a) the EC Type Examination Certificate (module B) for the life jacket light, No MED 0850012, issued on 15 January 2008 by Lloyd’s Register, valid until 14 January 2013, (b) the Quality Assurance Certificate (Module D) for the life jacket light, No MED 0950153, issued on 14 June 2009 by Lloyds Register, valid until 14 June 2012 and (c) the declarations of Conformity of the life jacket lights, respectively No MED 0600035, issued on 7 April 2008, valid until 13 June 2009 for batch No FP08, which had been manufactured in June 2009, and No MED 0950153, issued on 14 June 2009, valid until 13 June 2012 for batch No BA139, which had been manufactured in February 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The letter was accompanied by a detailed market surveillance report dated 2 March 2011 and a copy of (a) the EC Type Examination Certificate (module B) for the life jacket light, No MED 0850012, issued on 15 January 2008 by Lloyd’s Register, valid until 14 January 2013, (b) the Quality Assurance Certificate (Module D) for the life jacket light, No MED 0950153, issued on 14 June 2009 by Lloyds Register, valid until 14 June 2012 and (c) the declarations of Conformity of the life jacket lights, respectively No MED 0600035, issued on 7 April 2008, valid until 13 June 2009 for batch No FP08, which had been manufactured in June 2009, and No MED 0950153, issued on 14 June 2009, valid until 13 June 2012 for batch No BA139, which had been manufactured in February 2010.

| (4) | The interim measures were applies after it was found that the life jacket lights of the batches No FP08 and No BA139 did not meet the above mentioned applicable requirements during tests that were carried out by BSH within the framework of a market surveillance program. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The interim measures were applies after it was found that the life jacket lights of the batches No FP08 and No BA139 did not meet the above mentioned applicable requirements during tests that were carried out by BSH within the framework of a market surveillance program.

| (5) | More precisely BSH reported that two specimens from batch No FP08 had initially been tested to verify compliance with the requirement in Resolution MSC.48(66) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), section 2.2.3.1.1, whereby each life jacket light shall have a luminous intensity of not less than 0,75 candela (cd) in all directions of the upper hemisphere. The tests, which were performed in accordance with Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO, showed that, when measured at ambient temperature, one specimen complied with the requirement, while the other specimen did not reach the required intensity measured in the range of 0° to 10° at all and only partially in the range of 10° to 30°. After these tests further tests had been carried out on four specimens taken from batch No BA139. The tests with the specimens from this batch showed that, when measured at ambient temperature, (a) two specimens reached the required intensity only partially in the range of 0° to 20°; (b) with respect to the third specimen nearly all results did not reach the requirement in the range of 0° to 40° and the results reached the requirement only partially in the range of 40° to 55°; (c) the fourth specimen did not show any light output at all after operating for 7,5 h in water at – 1 °C. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

More precisely BSH reported that two specimens from batch No FP08 had initially been tested to verify compliance with the requirement in Resolution MSC.48(66) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), section 2.2.3.1.1, whereby each life jacket light shall have a luminous intensity of not less than 0,75 candela (cd) in all directions of the upper hemisphere. The tests, which were performed in accordance with Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO, showed that, when measured at ambient temperature, one specimen complied with the requirement, while the other specimen did not reach the required intensity measured in the range of 0° to 10° at all and only partially in the range of 10° to 30°. After these tests further tests had been carried out on four specimens taken from batch No BA139. The tests with the specimens from this batch showed that, when measured at ambient temperature, (a) two specimens reached the required intensity only partially in the range of 0° to 20°; (b) with respect to the third specimen nearly all results did not reach the requirement in the range of 0° to 40° and the results reached the requirement only partially in the range of 40° to 55°; (c) the fourth specimen did not show any light output at all after operating for 7,5 h in water at – 1 °C.

| (6) | Upon receipt of the letter from BSH the Commission entered into consultation with the manufacturer, the government of the United Kingdom as the notifying Member State and the Notified Body (Lloyd's Register) having issued the type-examination certificates in question on the latter's behalf (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘the parties’). The Commission asked a number of specific questions from each party and invited them to submit any other observations they might deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Upon receipt of the letter from BSH the Commission entered into consultation with the manufacturer, the government of the United Kingdom as the notifying Member State and the Notified Body (Lloyd's Register) having issued the type-examination certificates in question on the latter's behalf (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘the parties’). The Commission asked a number of specific questions from each party and invited them to submit any other observations they might deem appropriate.

| (7) | In response to the Commission’s consultation, the manufacturer submitted that (a) they had not attended the tests carried out by BSH and had not been able to control the tested products and their storage conditions, (b) production-quality assurance at the time the two batches concerned were manufactured did not include any tests allowing to verify luminosity; (c) this problem had now been resolved given that production-quality assurance is now being carried out in accordance with standard ISO 24408; (d) most likely there had simply been a batch problem due to piece part tolerances and (e) they did not challenge the results of the tests carried out by BSH. The manufacturer recognised that BSH might have identified a problem with specific batches and as a matter of goodwill Daniamant ApS was willing to replace the lights from those batches. The manufacturer also mentioned that the lights had only been distributed in Germany and that the battery and lamp had changed, which could not have been of any influence since the product with the changed battery and lamp had undergone new tests and were in compliance. The manufacturer furthermore stated that although they could challenge the test results they chose to cooperate with BSH on the recall of the life jacket lights of the batches concerned from the German market. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In response to the Commission’s consultation, the manufacturer submitted that (a) they had not attended the tests carried out by BSH and had not been able to control the tested products and their storage conditions, (b) production-quality assurance at the time the two batches concerned were manufactured did not include any tests allowing to verify luminosity; (c) this problem had now been resolved given that production-quality assurance is now being carried out in accordance with standard ISO 24408; (d) most likely there had simply been a batch problem due to piece part tolerances and (e) they did not challenge the results of the tests carried out by BSH. The manufacturer recognised that BSH might have identified a problem with specific batches and as a matter of goodwill Daniamant ApS was willing to replace the lights from those batches. The manufacturer also mentioned that the lights had only been distributed in Germany and that the battery and lamp had changed, which could not have been of any influence since the product with the changed battery and lamp had undergone new tests and were in compliance. The manufacturer furthermore stated that although they could challenge the test results they chose to cooperate with BSH on the recall of the life jacket lights of the batches concerned from the German market.

| (8) | In its answer to the Commission Lloyd’s Register concluded that the action taken (recall of the life jacket lights from the German market) was correct and that it was unclear how many lights had been returned or replaced since the recall was released. Further to this it would not be necessary, without further evidence, to recall the lights of the same model but belonging to other batches. Finally Lloyd's Register confirmed that the product had been subjected to new tests after the change of the battery and lamp, with satisfactory results. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In its answer to the Commission Lloyd’s Register concluded that the action taken (recall of the life jacket lights from the German market) was correct and that it was unclear how many lights had been returned or replaced since the recall was released. Further to this it would not be necessary, without further evidence, to recall the lights of the same model but belonging to other batches. Finally Lloyd's Register confirmed that the product had been subjected to new tests after the change of the battery and lamp, with satisfactory results.

| (9) | The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, for the government of the United Kingdom, replied that they were not aware that any party had challenged the results of the tests carried out by BSH and that they therefore would agree to the action taken by the German Authorities. Furthermore they would agree with the withdrawal from the European market of the batches the tested life jacket lights had been taken from. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency, for the government of the United Kingdom, replied that they were not aware that any party had challenged the results of the tests carried out by BSH and that they therefore would agree to the action taken by the German Authorities. Furthermore they would agree with the withdrawal from the European market of the batches the tested life jacket lights had been taken from.

| (10) | The Commission asked BSH for their views on the observations received. In their answer BSH considered that (a) the tested specimens were commercially available and had been delivered in the original packaging, (b) doubts about the impartiality of the accredited testing laboratory of BSH and about the neutrality of the market surveillance authority BSH would not be appropriate, (c) the deficiencies in the luminosity of the tested life jacket lights were detected in specimens from the two batches which had been tested, (d) the manufacturer had conceded in a letter to BSH dated 13 October 2010, which was attached to BSH's answer, that during testing at its own laboratory a few life jacket lights had failed to reach the minimum required luminosity of 0,75 cd. It was not stated when those tests had been carried out. BSH concluded that the statements from the manufacturer and the notified body did not warrant changes to the initial assessment and the reasons for the recall of the product remained, in their view, valid. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Commission asked BSH for their views on the observations received. In their answer BSH considered that (a) the tested specimens were commercially available and had been delivered in the original packaging, (b) doubts about the impartiality of the accredited testing laboratory of BSH and about the neutrality of the market surveillance authority BSH would not be appropriate, (c) the deficiencies in the luminosity of the tested life jacket lights were detected in specimens from the two batches which had been tested, (d) the manufacturer had conceded in a letter to BSH dated 13 October 2010, which was attached to BSH's answer, that during testing at its own laboratory a few life jacket lights had failed to reach the minimum required luminosity of 0,75 cd. It was not stated when those tests had been carried out. BSH concluded that the statements from the manufacturer and the notified body did not warrant changes to the initial assessment and the reasons for the recall of the product remained, in their view, valid.

| (11) | BSH acted within the framework of a market surveillance program on life jacket lights, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

BSH acted within the framework of a market surveillance program on life jacket lights, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 96/98/EC.

| (12) | The manufacturer was informed of the results of the above mentioned tests and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations and defend itself before the said Authority adopted any measures in respect of the product in question. Similarly, the notified body was informed and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The manufacturer was informed of the results of the above mentioned tests and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations and defend itself before the said Authority adopted any measures in respect of the product in question. Similarly, the notified body was informed and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations.

| (13) | The results from the tests carried out by BSH were not contested by either the United Kingdom authorities or the notified body; moreover, both agreed with the action taken (recall of the life jacket lights from the German market). Furthermore the Maritime and Coastguard Agency would agree to a recall from the European market. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The results from the tests carried out by BSH were not contested by either the United Kingdom authorities or the notified body; moreover, both agreed with the action taken (recall of the life jacket lights from the German market). Furthermore the Maritime and Coastguard Agency would agree to a recall from the European market.

| (14) | The Commission notes that, in its answer, the manufacturer speculates that most likely there had been a batch problem due to piece part tolerances thereby implicitly admitting that the life jacket lights possibly did not perform adequately. The manufacturer’s argument that the storage conditions were unknown, while probably true, does not detract from the fact that BSH had bought the tested specimens in the original packaging and it must be assumed that the specimens were exactly in the same specific condition as would have been available to ship owners for placing on board their ships. No objective elements have been provided that might call into question the storage conditions of the tested specimens between their purchase by BSH and their testing; in particular, the test reports do not refer to any external signs of deterioration. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Commission notes that, in its answer, the manufacturer speculates that most likely there had been a batch problem due to piece part tolerances thereby implicitly admitting that the life jacket lights possibly did not perform adequately. The manufacturer’s argument that the storage conditions were unknown, while probably true, does not detract from the fact that BSH had bought the tested specimens in the original packaging and it must be assumed that the specimens were exactly in the same specific condition as would have been available to ship owners for placing on board their ships. No objective elements have been provided that might call into question the storage conditions of the tested specimens between their purchase by BSH and their testing; in particular, the test reports do not refer to any external signs of deterioration.

| (15) | The Commission further notes that the manufacturer referred to ISO 24408 which is intended to assess the conformity of life jacket lights with the relevant IMO requirements during the production phase. For this purpose standard ISO 24408 was introduced in Annex A.1 of Directive 96/98/EC by Commission Directive 2009/26/EC (2), which became applicable in the Member States' legal orders as from 6 April 2010. This standard was subsequently removed from Annex A.1 by Commission Directive 2010/68/EC (3). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Commission further notes that the manufacturer referred to ISO 24408 which is intended to assess the conformity of life jacket lights with the relevant IMO requirements during the production phase. For this purpose standard ISO 24408 was introduced in Annex A.1 of Directive 96/98/EC by Commission Directive 2009/26/EC (2), which became applicable in the Member States' legal orders as from 6 April 2010. This standard was subsequently removed from Annex A.1 by Commission Directive 2010/68/EC (3).

| (16) | In accordance with Annex B of Directive 96/98/EC, production-quality assurance under Module D requires the manufacturer to ensure and declare that the products concerned conform to type as described in the EC type-examination certificate. Therefore this obligation was incumbent on the manufacturer regardless of whether or not specific production testing requirements were applicable in accordance with standard ISO 24408. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

In accordance with Annex B of Directive 96/98/EC, production-quality assurance under Module D requires the manufacturer to ensure and declare that the products concerned conform to type as described in the EC type-examination certificate. Therefore this obligation was incumbent on the manufacturer regardless of whether or not specific production testing requirements were applicable in accordance with standard ISO 24408.

| (17) | Based on the above considerations and the evidence submitted to the Commission, in particular the above mentioned results of the tests carried out on six specimens taken at random from two different batches of lifejacket lights produced by Daniamant ApS, namely batches No FP08 and No BA139, it is reasonable to conclude that at least these two production batches do not conform to the applicable requirements for this type of equipment. Furthermore from the evidence submitted it seems reasonable to conclude that the cause of the non-conformity lies with all likelihood in the production phase of the life jacket lights and not in the type approval phase. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Based on the above considerations and the evidence submitted to the Commission, in particular the above mentioned results of the tests carried out on six specimens taken at random from two different batches of lifejacket lights produced by Daniamant ApS, namely batches No FP08 and No BA139, it is reasonable to conclude that at least these two production batches do not conform to the applicable requirements for this type of equipment. Furthermore from the evidence submitted it seems reasonable to conclude that the cause of the non-conformity lies with all likelihood in the production phase of the life jacket lights and not in the type approval phase.

| (18) | Life jacket lights are important safety devices, which are used in emergency situations. The luminosity of those lights may be of crucial importance. This is especially true in cases where people in distress have to be located in the dusk or dark. A too low luminosity may hamper such location. For these reasons minimum requirements have been set and people in distress, rescuers and seafarers should be able to trust that those requirements are met. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Life jacket lights are important safety devices, which are used in emergency situations. The luminosity of those lights may be of crucial importance. This is especially true in cases where people in distress have to be located in the dusk or dark. A too low luminosity may hamper such location. For these reasons minimum requirements have been set and people in distress, rescuers and seafarers should be able to trust that those requirements are met.

| (19) | The Commission notes that the recall of the product only concerned the German market. The manufacturer has indicated that the product has only been distributed in Germany. However, it is unknown to what ships under which flags the products have been further disseminated. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Commission notes that the recall of the product only concerned the German market. The manufacturer has indicated that the product has only been distributed in Germany. However, it is unknown to what ships under which flags the products have been further disseminated.

| (20) | The duration of a recall in this particular case does not have to be limited until the moment measures have been taken such that the lights do comply with the applicable requirements and may be placed on the market again, since the model Rescue Dan M1 has already been replaced by a another model, |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The duration of a recall in this particular case does not have to be limited until the moment measures have been taken such that the lights do comply with the applicable requirements and may be placed on the market again, since the model Rescue Dan M1 has already been replaced by a another model,

HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

| 1. | The interim measures notified by the German government to the Commission by letter of 25 March 2011 in respect of life jacket lights of model Rescue Dan M1, batches No FP08 and No BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS in the Kingdom of Denmark are adequate and proportionate for the protection of maritime safety and are therefore justified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The interim measures notified by the German government to the Commission by letter of 25 March 2011 in respect of life jacket lights of model Rescue Dan M1, batches No FP08 and No BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS in the Kingdom of Denmark are adequate and proportionate for the protection of maritime safety and are therefore justified.

| 2. | The Commission recommends that the Member States ensure that life jacket lights of the model Rescue Dan M1 from batches No FP08 and No BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS, are removed from their markets. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission recommends that the Member States ensure that life jacket lights of the model Rescue Dan M1 from batches No FP08 and No BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS, are removed from their markets.

| 3. | The Commission recommends that the Member States take all appropriate action in order to remove the life jacket lights of the model Rescue Dan M1 from batches No FP08 and No BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS, from the ships flying their flag and have them replaced by other life jacket lights fulfilling the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission recommends that the Member States take all appropriate action in order to remove the life jacket lights of the model Rescue Dan M1 from batches No FP08 and No BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS, from the ships flying their flag and have them replaced by other life jacket lights fulfilling the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC.

| 4. | The Commission recommends that the Member States and Notified Body Lloyd's Register cooperate to verify that life jacket lights model Rescue Dan M1, other than those belonging to batches FP08 and BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS, comply with the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission recommends that the Member States and Notified Body Lloyd's Register cooperate to verify that life jacket lights model Rescue Dan M1, other than those belonging to batches FP08 and BA139, manufactured by Daniamant ApS, comply with the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC.

| 5. | The Member States should as soon as possible inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures taken pursuant to this opinion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Member States should as soon as possible inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures taken pursuant to this opinion.

Done at Brussels, 14 March 2012.

For the Commission

Siim KALLAS

Vice-President

---

(1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 25.

1

(2)  OJ L 113, 6.5.2009, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 305, 20.11.2010, p. 1.

3

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 76/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 9.11.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.32263 (11/N) |
| Member State | Sweden |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Stöd för utveckling av en demonstrationsanläggning för vågenergi |
| Legal basis | Förordning (1988:764) om statligt stöd till näringslivet Förordning (2008:761) om statligt stöd till forskning, utveckling och innovation på energiområdet |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: SEK 139 million |
| Intensity | 42 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 2016 |
| Economic sectors | Manufacturing industry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Statens energimyndighet |
| Box 310 |
| SE-631 04 Eskilstuna |
| SVERIGE |

Date of adoption of the decision

9.11.2011

Reference number of State Aid

SA.32263 (11/N)

Member State

Sweden

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Stöd för utveckling av en demonstrationsanläggning för vågenergi

Legal basis

Förordning (1988:764) om statligt stöd till näringslivet Förordning (2008:761) om statligt stöd till forskning, utveckling och innovation på energiområdet

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: SEK 139 million

Intensity

42 %

Duration (period)

Until 2016

Economic sectors

Manufacturing industry

Name and address of the granting authority

Statens energimyndighet

Box 310

SE-631 04 Eskilstuna

SVERIGE

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/state_aids_texts_en.htm

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8.2.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.34067 (11/N) |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Verlängerung der CIRR-Finanzierungsregelung für den Export von Schiffen |
| Legal basis | Richtlinien für die Übernahme von Gewährleistungen zur Absicherung des Zinsrisikos bei der Refinanzierung von CIRR-Krediten für den Bau von Schiffen (Zinsausgleichsgarantien) vom 19. Dezember 2007 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Export and internationalisation |
| Form of aid | Export credits insurance |
| Budget | | Annual budget: EUR 2,295 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

8.2.2012

Reference number of State Aid

SA.34067 (11/N)

Member State

Germany

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Verlängerung der CIRR-Finanzierungsregelung für den Export von Schiffen

Legal basis

Richtlinien für die Übernahme von Gewährleistungen zur Absicherung des Zinsrisikos bei der Refinanzierung von CIRR-Krediten für den Bau von Schiffen (Zinsausgleichsgarantien) vom 19. Dezember 2007

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Export and internationalisation

Form of aid

Export credits insurance

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 2,295 million

| | Overall budget: EUR 2,295 million |
| --- | --- |

Overall budget: EUR 2,295 million

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

2012-2013

Economic sectors

Shipbuilding

Name and address of the granting authority

| Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft- und Technologie |
| --- |
| Scharnhorststr. 34-37 |
| 10115 Berlin |
| DEUTSCHLAND |

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft- und Technologie

Scharnhorststr. 34-37

10115 Berlin

DEUTSCHLAND

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/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6473 — Sun Capital/Elix)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 76/03

On 9 March 2012, 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:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6473. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6473. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/7

---

COUNCIL ACT

of 8 March 2012

extending the term of office of the Director of Europol

2012/C 76/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Article 56(1) and Article 38 of the Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol) (1),

Having regard to the Decision of the Management Board of Europol of 4 June 2009 establishing the rules on the selection, extension of the term of office and dismissal of the Director and Deputy Directors of Europol (2), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Acting as the authority vested with the power to appoint the Director and Deputy Directors of Europol,

Having regard to the opinion of the Management Board of Europol,

Bearing in mind that the grading of the Director of Europol is subject to the approval of the Europol’s multiannual Staff Policy Plan 2013-15 by the budgetary authority,

Whereas:

| (1) | The term of office of the Director of Europol appointed by Council Act of 6 April 2009 (3) is due to expire on 15 April 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The term of office of the Director of Europol appointed by Council Act of 6 April 2009 (3) is due to expire on 15 April 2013.

| (2) | The Director of Europol is appointed for a 4-year period which may be extended once for not more than 4 years in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Director of Europol is appointed for a 4-year period which may be extended once for not more than 4 years in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol).

| (3) | The Management Board of Europol presented the Council with an opinion proposing that the term of office of the Director of Europol Mr Robert WAINWRIGHT be extended for a 4-year term. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Board of Europol presented the Council with an opinion proposing that the term of office of the Director of Europol Mr Robert WAINWRIGHT be extended for a 4-year term.

| (4) | On the basis of the opinion provided by the Management Board of Europol, the Council wishes to extend the term of office of Mr Robert WAINWRIGHT as the Director of Europol, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On the basis of the opinion provided by the Management Board of Europol, the Council wishes to extend the term of office of Mr Robert WAINWRIGHT as the Director of Europol,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The term of office of Mr Robert WAINWRIGHT is hereby extended from 16 April 2013 to 15 April 2017.

Subject to the approval of the Europol’s multiannual Staff Policy Plan 2013-15 by the budgetary authority, Mr Robert WAINWRIGHT is appointed at grade AD 15, step 2 as from 16 April 2013.

Article 2

This Act shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 March 2012.

For the Council

The President

M. BØDSKOV

---

(1)  OJ L 121, 15.5.2009, p. 37.

1

(2)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 3.

2

(3)  OJ C 111, 15.5.2009, p. 4.

3

---

European Commission

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 March 2012

2012/C 76/05

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3062 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 109,16 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4349 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83140 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8830 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2110 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5470 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,615 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 292,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1545 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3655 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3459 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2474 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2927 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1390 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6082 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6546 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 474,59 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,9960 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2719 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5298 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 977,40 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9954 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,025 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,4940 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,205 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3614 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,4549 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,3430 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3062

JPY

Japanese yen

109,16

DKK

Danish krone

7,4349

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83140

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8830

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2110

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5470

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,615

HUF

Hungarian forint

292,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1545

RON

Romanian leu

4,3655

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3459

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2474

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2927

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1390

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6082

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6546

KRW

South Korean won

1 474,59

ZAR

South African rand

9,9960

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2719

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5298

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 977,40

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9954

PHP

Philippine peso

56,025

RUB

Russian rouble

38,4940

THB

Thai baht

40,205

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3614

MXN

Mexican peso

16,4549

INR

Indian rupee

65,3430

---

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

---

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/9

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

2012/C 76/06

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 14 December 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 68563 |
| Decision number | : | 391/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Title | : | Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Alcan Iceland Ltd. |
| Legal basis | : | Act No 42/1983 on Landsvirkjun; Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Alcan Iceland Ltd. |
| Objective | : | Not applicable |
| Duration | : | 24 years |
| Economic sectors | : | Power generation/metal industry |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

14 December 2011

Case number

:

68563

Decision number

:

391/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Title

:

Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Alcan Iceland Ltd.

Legal basis

:

Act No 42/1983 on Landsvirkjun; Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Alcan Iceland Ltd.

Objective

:

Not applicable

Duration

:

24 years

Economic sectors

:

Power generation/metal industry

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/

---

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/10

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

2012/C 76/07

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 14 December 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 69969 |
| Decision number | : | 392/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Iceland |
| Title | : | Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Íslenska kísilfélagið ehf. |
| Legal basis | : | Act No 59/1965 on Landsvirkjun; Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Íslenska kísilfélagið ehf. |
| Objective | : | Not applicable |
| Duration | : | 18 years |
| Economic sectors | : | Power generation/metal industry |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

14 December 2011

Case number

:

69969

Decision number

:

392/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Iceland

Title

:

Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Íslenska kísilfélagið ehf.

Legal basis

:

Act No 59/1965 on Landsvirkjun; Power contract between Landsvirkjun and Íslenska kísilfélagið ehf.

Objective

:

Not applicable

Duration

:

18 years

Economic sectors

:

Power generation/metal industry

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/

---

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/11

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

2012/C 76/08

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

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 14 December 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 70924 |
| Decision number | : | 395/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Liechtenstein |
| Title | : | The prolongation of the State aid scheme under the Media Support Act |
| Legal basis | : | The Media Support Act of 21 September 2006 (Medienförderungsgesetz) |
| Objective | : | To preserve the pluralism of opinions, to promote journalistic-editorial quality as well as to facilitate the dissemination of opinion shaping media in Liechtenstein |
| Form of aid | : | Grants |
| Budget | : | CHF 11,04 million, annually CHF 1,84 million |
| Duration | : | 1 January 2012-31 December 2017 |
| Economic sectors | : | Media, publishing industry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Medienkommission |
| Regierungsgebäude |
| FL-9490 Vaduz |
| LIECHTENSTEIN |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

14 December 2011

Case number

:

70924

Decision number

:

395/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Liechtenstein

Title

:

The prolongation of the State aid scheme under the Media Support Act

Legal basis

:

The Media Support Act of 21 September 2006 (Medienförderungsgesetz)

Objective

:

To preserve the pluralism of opinions, to promote journalistic-editorial quality as well as to facilitate the dissemination of opinion shaping media in Liechtenstein

Form of aid

:

Grants

Budget

:

CHF 11,04 million, annually CHF 1,84 million

Duration

:

1 January 2012-31 December 2017

Economic sectors

:

Media, publishing industry

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Medienkommission

Regierungsgebäude

FL-9490 Vaduz

LIECHTENSTEIN

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 Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/12

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

2012/C 76/09

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions:

| | EPSO/AD/230/12 — Administrators (AD 5)
  and |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/230/12 — Administrators (AD 5)

and

| | EPSO/AD/231/12 — Administrators (AD 7) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/231/12 — Administrators (AD 7)

in the following fields:

| 1. | European public administration |
| --- | --- |

1.

European public administration

| 2. | Law |
| --- | --- |

2.

Law

| 3. | Audit |
| --- | --- |

3.

Audit

| 4. | Communication |
| --- | --- |

4.

Communication

| 5. | External relations |
| --- | --- |

5.

External relations

The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 76 A of 15 March 2012.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://eu-careers.eu

---

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 15.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/13

---

Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-1/12)

2012/C 76/10

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening, represented by Jan Magne Juuhl-Langseth, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Munkedamsveien 45, N-0201 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | Declare Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority void; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority void; and

| 2. | Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The Applicant is the Norwegian Publishers Association. Its members are publishing houses in Norway. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant is the Norwegian Publishers Association. Its members are publishing houses in Norway.

| — | The Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, adopted on 12 October 2011. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, adopted on 12 October 2011.

| — | The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






  — | failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure, according to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA); and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

—

failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure, according to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA); and

| — | has not provided sufficient reasoning for its Decision, as stated in Article 16 SCA. |
| --- | --- |

—

has not provided sufficient reasoning for its Decision, as stated in Article 16 SCA.

---