# Official Journal C 195/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 195 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 511 August 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 195

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 511 August 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 195/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 195/01

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

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 195/02 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2008/C 195/03 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Mergers given at its meeting of 20 February 2008 relating a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic — Rapporteur: Spain | 4 |
| 2008/C 195/04 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic (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) | 5 |
| 2008/C 195/05 | Summary of Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic) | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 195/02

Euro exchange rates

3

2008/C 195/03

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Mergers given at its meeting of 20 February 2008 relating a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic — Rapporteur: Spain

4

2008/C 195/04

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic (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)

5

2008/C 195/05

Summary of Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic)

6

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 195/06 | Call for proposals — EAC/26/08 — Amicus preparatory action | 9 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 195/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5279 — Linde/Flowserve/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 12 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2008/C 195/06

Call for proposals — EAC/26/08 — Amicus preparatory action

9

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 195/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5279 — Linde/Flowserve/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

12

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 1.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/1

---

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 195/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 30.4.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | NN 43/07 (ex N 31/06) |
| Member State | Czech Republic |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Náhrada za ztráty a škody na předmětech poskytnutých pro významné veřejné výstavy |
| Legal basis | Zákon o některých druzích podpory kultury a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (č. 203/2006 Sb. – 12/04/2006) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Culture |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | Annual budget: CZK 10 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 12.4.2006- |
| Economic sectors | Recreational, cultural sporting activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerstvo kultury |
| Maltézské nám. 1 |
| CZ-118 11 Praha 1 |

Date of adoption of the decision

30.4.2008

Reference number of the aid

NN 43/07 (ex N 31/06)

Member State

Czech Republic

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Náhrada za ztráty a škody na předmětech poskytnutých pro významné veřejné výstavy

Legal basis

Zákon o některých druzích podpory kultury a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů (č. 203/2006 Sb. – 12/04/2006)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Culture

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

Annual budget: CZK 10 million

Intensity

—

Duration

12.4.2006-

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerstvo kultury

Maltézské nám. 1

CZ-118 11 Praha 1

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 | 2.7.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 199/08 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Sachsen-Anhalt |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Intico Solar AG |
| Legal basis | Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 sowie etwaige Nachfolgeregelung; 36. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe — Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant and investment premium |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 73,125 million |
| Intensity | 11,88 % |
| Duration | 2008-2010 |
| Economic sectors | Electrical and optical equipment |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt |
| Domplatz 12 |
| D-39104 Magdeburg |

Date of adoption of the decision

2.7.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 199/08

Member State

Germany

Region

Sachsen-Anhalt

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Intico Solar AG

Legal basis

Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 sowie etwaige Nachfolgeregelung; 36. Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe — Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Direct grant and investment premium

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 73,125 million

Intensity

11,88 %

Duration

2008-2010

Economic sectors

Electrical and optical equipment

Name and address of the granting authority

Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt

Domplatz 12

D-39104 Magdeburg

| Finanzamt Halle (Saale)-Nord |
| --- |
| Blücherstr. 1 |
| D-06122 Halle |

Finanzamt Halle (Saale)-Nord

Blücherstr. 1

D-06122 Halle

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/

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 1.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 July 2008

(2008/C 195/02)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5611 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 169,02 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4613 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78895 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4649 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6354 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 123,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0205 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,947 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 231,26 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7043 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,2063 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5098 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,371 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8090 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6545 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5970 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 12,1809 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1296 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1354 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 579,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,4590 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,6651 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2263 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 198,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0829 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,900 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,5767 |
| THB | Thai baht | 52,328 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4419 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,6375 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5611

JPY

Japanese yen

169,02

DKK

Danish krone

7,4613

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78895

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4649

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6354

ISK

Iceland króna

123,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0205

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,947

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

231,26

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7043

PLN

Polish zloty

3,2063

RON

Romanian leu

3,5098

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,371

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8090

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6545

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5970

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

12,1809

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1296

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1354

KRW

South Korean won

1 579,05

ZAR

South African rand

11,4590

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,6651

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2263

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 198,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0829

PHP

Philippine peso

68,900

RUB

Russian rouble

36,5767

THB

Thai baht

52,328

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4419

MXN

Mexican peso

15,6375

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 1.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Mergers given at its meeting of 20 February 2008 relating a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic

Rapporteur: Spain

(2008/C 195/03)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension within the meaning of Articles 1 and 4(5) of the EC Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension within the meaning of Articles 1 and 4(5) of the EC Merger Regulation.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product markets.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic market. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic market.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition on the market for software Modelling tools. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition on the market for software Modelling tools.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition on the market for software Requirements Management tools. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition on the market for software Requirements Management tools.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2), 8(1) and 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2), 8(1) and 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

| 1.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/5

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic

(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 195/04)

On 28 June 2007, the Commission received a referral request from International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Merger Regulation). No Member State competent to examine the concentration under its national competition law objected to the 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 29 August 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which IBM acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of the undertaking Telelogic AB by way of a public bid, which was announced on 11 June 2007.

After a preliminary examination of the notification, the Commission found that the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the EEA agreement. Accordingly, the Commission decided, on 3 October 2007, to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 15 November 2007, the Commission adopted a decision under Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation requiring IBM to supply certain information. In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (the Merger Implementing Regulation) the procedure was suspended from 5 November 2007 until 3 December 2007.

Access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 9 October 2007 in accordance with DG Competition's ‘Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings’.

Following the in-depth market investigation the Commission has concluded that the proposed transaction does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and is therefore compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the merging parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 22 February 2008.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

| 1.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/6

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 5 March 2008

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

(Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(2008/C 195/05)

On 5 March 2008, 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, 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 case and in the working languages of the Commission on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address:

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

1.   INTRODUCTION

| 1. | On 29 August 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking International Business Machines Corporation (‘IBM’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Telelogic AB (‘Telelogic’) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 29 August 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking International Business Machines Corporation (‘IBM’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Telelogic AB (‘Telelogic’) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | After examination of the notification, the Commission concluded on 3 October 2007 that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the EEA agreement. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

After examination of the notification, the Commission concluded on 3 October 2007 that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the EEA agreement. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

2.   THE PARTIES

| 3. | IBM (‘the notifying party’), a US company, is active worldwide in the development, production and marketing of a variety of information technology (‘IT’) products, software and services. |
| --- | --- |

3.

IBM (‘the notifying party’), a US company, is active worldwide in the development, production and marketing of a variety of information technology (‘IT’) products, software and services.

| 4. | Telelogic is a Swedish company active in the development and sale of software development tools (1). |
| --- | --- |

4.

Telelogic is a Swedish company active in the development and sale of software development tools (1).

3.   ARTICLE 4(5) REFERRAL

| 5. | On 28 June 2007, the Commission received a referral request from the notifying party pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation. Since the notified concentration is capable of being reviewed under the national competition laws of 10 different Member States and no Member State expressed its disagreement with respect to the request to refer the case to the Commission, the decision concludes that it is deemed to have a Community dimension. |
| --- | --- |

5.

On 28 June 2007, the Commission received a referral request from the notifying party pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation. Since the notified concentration is capable of being reviewed under the national competition laws of 10 different Member States and no Member State expressed its disagreement with respect to the request to refer the case to the Commission, the decision concludes that it is deemed to have a Community dimension.

4.   THE RELEVANT MARKETS

4.1.   Relevant Product Market

| 6. | The proposed transaction has an impact on the software development tools industry. Software development tools are used to create new and to develop existing software applications. Both IBM and Telelogic are suppliers of software development tools. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The proposed transaction has an impact on the software development tools industry. Software development tools are used to create new and to develop existing software applications. Both IBM and Telelogic are suppliers of software development tools.

| 7. | In a previous decision, the Commission left open the question of whether an overall market for software development tools exists, or whether distinct product markets within the area of software development tools have to be defined. |
| --- | --- |

7.

In a previous decision, the Commission left open the question of whether an overall market for software development tools exists, or whether distinct product markets within the area of software development tools have to be defined.

| 8. | The decision concludes that the relevant product markets in which the proposed concentration might have a significant competitive impact are the following:






  — | the market for Modelling tools, whether or not this market is further subdivided between UML (2) and non UML tools, tools for IT applications and tools for systems software and for different customer groups, |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

The decision concludes that the relevant product markets in which the proposed concentration might have a significant competitive impact are the following:

—

the market for Modelling tools, whether or not this market is further subdivided between UML (2) and non UML tools, tools for IT applications and tools for systems software and for different customer groups,

| — | the market for Requirements Management tools, whether or not this market is further subdivided between tools for IT applications and tools for systems software and for different customer groups. |
| --- | --- |

—

the market for Requirements Management tools, whether or not this market is further subdivided between tools for IT applications and tools for systems software and for different customer groups.

| 9. | However, due to the heterogeneous nature of Modelling and Requirements Management tools the two product market definitions only can provide a broad framework for the competitive analysis of the proposed transaction. |
| --- | --- |

9.

However, due to the heterogeneous nature of Modelling and Requirements Management tools the two product market definitions only can provide a broad framework for the competitive analysis of the proposed transaction.

4.2.   Relevant Geographic Markets

| 10. | The in-depth investigation indicated that, apart from language customisation, suppliers offer the same Modelling and Requirements Management tools throughout the world, and customers tend to buy the same products for their different divisions or business units regardless of their geographic location. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The in-depth investigation indicated that, apart from language customisation, suppliers offer the same Modelling and Requirements Management tools throughout the world, and customers tend to buy the same products for their different divisions or business units regardless of their geographic location.

| 11. | The decision leaves the exact definition of the relevant geographic markets open in the present case, as the conclusion of the competitive assessment remains unchanged under a worldwide or an EU-wide definition. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The decision leaves the exact definition of the relevant geographic markets open in the present case, as the conclusion of the competitive assessment remains unchanged under a worldwide or an EU-wide definition.

5.   COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

| 12. | The decision to initiate proceedings identified three theories of harm: (i) unilateral price increases; (ii) decreased incentives for innovation; and (iii) decrease in interoperability of software tools. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The decision to initiate proceedings identified three theories of harm: (i) unilateral price increases; (ii) decreased incentives for innovation; and (iii) decrease in interoperability of software tools.

5.1.   Unilateral price increases

| 13. | For Modelling tools, the industry analyst Gartner estimates the parties' combined ‘market share’ at 68 % worldwide (IBM: 48 % and Telelogic: 20 %), and 69 % in Europe (IBM: 45 % and Telelogic: 25 %). According to corrected market share data submitted by IBM the merged entity would arrive at a joint worldwide market share for Modelling tools of [30-40] %. |
| --- | --- |

13.

For Modelling tools, the industry analyst Gartner estimates the parties' combined ‘market share’ at 68 % worldwide (IBM: 48 % and Telelogic: 20 %), and 69 % in Europe (IBM: 45 % and Telelogic: 25 %). According to corrected market share data submitted by IBM the merged entity would arrive at a joint worldwide market share for Modelling tools of [30-40] %.

| 14. | For Requirements Management tools, Gartner estimates the combined ‘market share’ of the parties at 62 % worldwide (IBM: 25 % and Telelogic: 37 %) and 65 % in Europe (IBM: 22 % and Telelogic: 43 %). According to corrected market share data submitted by IBM, the merged entity would arrive at a joint worldwide market share for Requirements Management tools of [20-30] %. |
| --- | --- |

14.

For Requirements Management tools, Gartner estimates the combined ‘market share’ of the parties at 62 % worldwide (IBM: 25 % and Telelogic: 37 %) and 65 % in Europe (IBM: 22 % and Telelogic: 43 %). According to corrected market share data submitted by IBM, the merged entity would arrive at a joint worldwide market share for Requirements Management tools of [20-30] %.

| 15. | While Gartner's estimates appear to be too large, IBM's estimates would not appear to be entirely correct either, as they underestimate the parties' own license revenues and overestimate the importance of small vendors. In the Decision, the Commission estimates the worldwide combined market share of the parties at [30-40] % for Modelling tools (or at [50-60] %, if only UML tools are considered), and at [20-30] % for Requirements Management tools. |
| --- | --- |

15.

While Gartner's estimates appear to be too large, IBM's estimates would not appear to be entirely correct either, as they underestimate the parties' own license revenues and overestimate the importance of small vendors. In the Decision, the Commission estimates the worldwide combined market share of the parties at [30-40] % for Modelling tools (or at [50-60] %, if only UML tools are considered), and at [20-30] % for Requirements Management tools.

| 16. | However, given the heterogeneous nature of Modelling and Requirements Management tools caution is required when using market shares as a direct proxy for market power in the present case. In view hereof, the potential anti-competitive effects of the merger have primarily been assessed on the basis of an analysis of closeness of substitution. |
| --- | --- |

16.

However, given the heterogeneous nature of Modelling and Requirements Management tools caution is required when using market shares as a direct proxy for market power in the present case. In view hereof, the potential anti-competitive effects of the merger have primarily been assessed on the basis of an analysis of closeness of substitution.

| 17. | An analysis of the functionalities of the respective Telelogic's and IBM's Modelling and Requirements Management tools confirms that significant differences exist between the tools of both companies. The specific qualities and functionalities of Telelogic's Modelling and Requirements Management tools make them more suitable for use by system customers than by IT customers. On the other hand, a comparison of the qualities and functionalities which are of particular interest to IT developers indicate the opposite: IBM's Modelling and Requirements Management tools are more suitable than Telelogic's tools for use by IT customers. |
| --- | --- |

17.

An analysis of the functionalities of the respective Telelogic's and IBM's Modelling and Requirements Management tools confirms that significant differences exist between the tools of both companies. The specific qualities and functionalities of Telelogic's Modelling and Requirements Management tools make them more suitable for use by system customers than by IT customers. On the other hand, a comparison of the qualities and functionalities which are of particular interest to IT developers indicate the opposite: IBM's Modelling and Requirements Management tools are more suitable than Telelogic's tools for use by IT customers.

| 18. | The differences in functionalities and commercial focus between Telelogic's and IBM's Modelling and Requirements Management tools are also reflected in the type of customers each of these companies serve. Telelogic's customers are primarily active in typical system sectors, such as aerospace and defense, communications and automotive sectors. IBM's customers are more concentrated in the IT, the financial and public administration sectors. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The differences in functionalities and commercial focus between Telelogic's and IBM's Modelling and Requirements Management tools are also reflected in the type of customers each of these companies serve. Telelogic's customers are primarily active in typical system sectors, such as aerospace and defense, communications and automotive sectors. IBM's customers are more concentrated in the IT, the financial and public administration sectors.

| 19. | The in-depth investigation, which included the sending of three rounds of detailed requests for information, interviews with customers and competitors and an analysis of win/loss data, confirmed that Telelogic's Modelling and Requirements Management tools cannot be considered as close substitutes to IBM's Modelling tools. |
| --- | --- |

19.

The in-depth investigation, which included the sending of three rounds of detailed requests for information, interviews with customers and competitors and an analysis of win/loss data, confirmed that Telelogic's Modelling and Requirements Management tools cannot be considered as close substitutes to IBM's Modelling tools.

| 20. | Even if some customers would consider Telelogic's and IBM's offerings as (relatively) close substitutes for certain uses, the limited number of occasions in which this would be the case, would not allow the merged entity to increase prices post merger. There is a sufficiently large group of suppliers of Modelling and Requirements Management tools with functionalities close to that provided by IBM's and Telelogic's tools, which would render such a price increase unprofitable. The circumstance that a procurement decision (especially for big orders) is often taken on the basis of a tender-like procurement process implies that in such cases market shares of IBM and Telelogic play a less important role. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Even if some customers would consider Telelogic's and IBM's offerings as (relatively) close substitutes for certain uses, the limited number of occasions in which this would be the case, would not allow the merged entity to increase prices post merger. There is a sufficiently large group of suppliers of Modelling and Requirements Management tools with functionalities close to that provided by IBM's and Telelogic's tools, which would render such a price increase unprofitable. The circumstance that a procurement decision (especially for big orders) is often taken on the basis of a tender-like procurement process implies that in such cases market shares of IBM and Telelogic play a less important role.

5.2.   Decreased incentives for innovation

| 21. | In the decision to initiate proceedings, it was noted that some customers voiced concerns that there would be less innovation as a direct consequence of the lack of effective competition in Requirements Management and Modelling tools after the proposed concentration. Therefore in the course of the in-depth investigation, the Commission has examined whether or not the merged IBM/Telelogic would have reduced incentives to innovate in comparison to the incentives of IBM and Telelogic separately (i.e. in the absence of the notified transaction). |
| --- | --- |

21.

In the decision to initiate proceedings, it was noted that some customers voiced concerns that there would be less innovation as a direct consequence of the lack of effective competition in Requirements Management and Modelling tools after the proposed concentration. Therefore in the course of the in-depth investigation, the Commission has examined whether or not the merged IBM/Telelogic would have reduced incentives to innovate in comparison to the incentives of IBM and Telelogic separately (i.e. in the absence of the notified transaction).

| 22. | The in-depth investigation revealed however that competition between IBM and Telelogic has not been a major driver for innovation in the recent past. Innovation in the software development industry has primarily been spurred by customer's needs as well as by improved standards for UML. |
| --- | --- |

22.

The in-depth investigation revealed however that competition between IBM and Telelogic has not been a major driver for innovation in the recent past. Innovation in the software development industry has primarily been spurred by customer's needs as well as by improved standards for UML.

| 23. | Further, as demonstrated above with respect to both Modelling and Requirements Management tools, IBM's and Telelogic's products are not close substitutes, as they generally address different types of customers and different types of needs. Therefore, the removal of the competition between IBM and Telelogic as a result of the proposed transaction would not result in the elimination of a major factor of innovation in the markets for Modelling and Requirements Management tools. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Further, as demonstrated above with respect to both Modelling and Requirements Management tools, IBM's and Telelogic's products are not close substitutes, as they generally address different types of customers and different types of needs. Therefore, the removal of the competition between IBM and Telelogic as a result of the proposed transaction would not result in the elimination of a major factor of innovation in the markets for Modelling and Requirements Management tools.

| 24. | Therefore, the decision concludes that the proposed transaction is unlikely to reduce the pace of innovation in the markets for Requirements Management and Modelling tools in the near future. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Therefore, the decision concludes that the proposed transaction is unlikely to reduce the pace of innovation in the markets for Requirements Management and Modelling tools in the near future.

5.3.   Decrease in interoperability of software tools

| 25. | The decision to initiate proceedings raised concerns that the merged entity would have less incentive to provide open interfaces that allow integration with third parties' software development tools. In particular, one competitor of the parties (Microsoft) advanced the argument that the merged entity would have the ability and the incentive to foreclose its competitors on the markets (or market segments) for Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) software, Software Change and Configuration Management (SCCM) tools, and Application Server Software Platforms (ASSP). |
| --- | --- |

25.

The decision to initiate proceedings raised concerns that the merged entity would have less incentive to provide open interfaces that allow integration with third parties' software development tools. In particular, one competitor of the parties (Microsoft) advanced the argument that the merged entity would have the ability and the incentive to foreclose its competitors on the markets (or market segments) for Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) software, Software Change and Configuration Management (SCCM) tools, and Application Server Software Platforms (ASSP).

| 26. | The decision concludes however, that the characteristics of the markets for Modelling and Requirements Management tools, especially for high-end tools in these two markets, rule out a successful foreclosure strategy. While it would be technically possible for IBM to obscure communication protocols and file formats to thwart interoperability with third parties' tools, the merged entity would have no incentive to engage in such a strategy, as the potential costs would far outweigh the potential benefits. |
| --- | --- |

26.

The decision concludes however, that the characteristics of the markets for Modelling and Requirements Management tools, especially for high-end tools in these two markets, rule out a successful foreclosure strategy. While it would be technically possible for IBM to obscure communication protocols and file formats to thwart interoperability with third parties' tools, the merged entity would have no incentive to engage in such a strategy, as the potential costs would far outweigh the potential benefits.

6.   CONCLUSION

| 27. | The Commission concludes in the Decision that the proposed concentration will not give raise to any competition concerns as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Common Market or in a substantial part of it. Consequently, the Commission intends to declare the concentration compatible with the Common Market and the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

27.

The Commission concludes in the Decision that the proposed concentration will not give raise to any competition concerns as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the Common Market or in a substantial part of it. Consequently, the Commission intends to declare the concentration compatible with the Common Market and the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

(1)  Occasionally, Telelogic and IBM are collectively referred to as ‘the parties’.

(2)  UML (Unified Modelling Language) can best be characterised as a general-purpose, open, and standardised modelling language.

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

| 1.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/9

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EAC/26/08

Amicus preparatory action

(2008/C 195/06)

1.   Objectives and description

This call for proposals aims to implement the Amicus preparatory action, the objectives of which are to:

| — | promote the transnational character of youth placements in civic service and voluntary work activities, |
| --- | --- |

—

promote the transnational character of youth placements in civic service and voluntary work activities,

| — | encourage the development of a European framework to facilitate the interoperability of existing civic service and voluntary work opportunities for young people in the Member States (whether they originate in civic service structures or civil society organisations), |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage the development of a European framework to facilitate the interoperability of existing civic service and voluntary work opportunities for young people in the Member States (whether they originate in civic service structures or civil society organisations),

| — | allow a testing and evaluation phase by way of specific European cooperation projects (transnational dimension) in the field of civic service and voluntary work for young people. |
| --- | --- |

—

allow a testing and evaluation phase by way of specific European cooperation projects (transnational dimension) in the field of civic service and voluntary work for young people.

This call for proposals is published in accordance with the Annual work programme on grants and contracts in the field of education and culture for 2008, adopted by the European Commission (hereinafter known as ‘the Commission’) on 11 March 2008, in line with the procedure provided for in Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC (1) as amended by Commission Decision C(2008) 3694 of 25 July 2008.

The Commission department responsible for the implementation and management of this action is the ‘Youth in Action’ unit of the Education and Culture Directorate-General.

2.   Eligible applicants

Under this call for proposals, two categories of applicants are eligible:

| 1. | firstly, and as a priority, public bodies whose main activity is in the field of civic service; |
| --- | --- |

1.

firstly, and as a priority, public bodies whose main activity is in the field of civic service;

| 2. | and non-government organisations or not-for-profit associations whose main activity is in the field of youth voluntary work. |
| --- | --- |

2.

and non-government organisations or not-for-profit associations whose main activity is in the field of youth voluntary work.

Moreover, to be eligible, applicants must meet the following conditions:

| — | have their head office in one of the Member States of the European Union: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, |
| --- | --- |

—

have their head office in one of the Member States of the European Union: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom,

| — | have legal status, |
| --- | --- |

—

have legal status,

| — | be able to demonstrate at least two years' experience in the area of placing young people in civic or voluntary service at national level (if young people were also sent abroad, the proportion sent abroad must not exceed 5 % of the total young people placed over the past two years). |
| --- | --- |

—

be able to demonstrate at least two years' experience in the area of placing young people in civic or voluntary service at national level (if young people were also sent abroad, the proportion sent abroad must not exceed 5 % of the total young people placed over the past two years).

Each applicant may submit just one project.

Natural persons are not allowed to submit applications under this call for proposals.

3.   Budget and project duration

Budget

The total budget earmarked for the co-financing of projects under this call amounts to EUR 3 000 000.

The Commission plans to support 27 projects, i.e. 1 project per Member State, so as to cover the entire European Union. However, depending on the number and quality of the projects submitted, the Commission reserves the right to:

| — | not provide full coverage of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

not provide full coverage of the European Union,

| — | not award all the funding available, |
| --- | --- |

—

not award all the funding available,

but also:

| — | to fund more than one (maximum of three) project(s) in the same country if there is still funding left over, in line with the rules in the call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

—

to fund more than one (maximum of three) project(s) in the same country if there is still funding left over, in line with the rules in the call for proposals.

The maximum amount awarded to a given project will be in line with the funding rules laid down in the technical specifications of the call for proposals and the population of the country concerned. A ceiling has been established for each Member State, as follows:

| — | for projects proposed by applicants whose head office is in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Romania or the United Kingdom, the amount of funding awarded will be a maximum of EUR 181 000, |
| --- | --- |

—

for projects proposed by applicants whose head office is in Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Romania or the United Kingdom, the amount of funding awarded will be a maximum of EUR 181 000,

| — | for projects proposed by applicants whose head office is in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden, the amount of funding will be a maximum of EUR 91 150, |
| --- | --- |

—

for projects proposed by applicants whose head office is in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden, the amount of funding will be a maximum of EUR 91 150,

| — | for projects proposed by applicants whose head office is in Luxembourg or Malta, the maximum amount of funding will be EUR 46 150. |
| --- | --- |

—

for projects proposed by applicants whose head office is in Luxembourg or Malta, the maximum amount of funding will be EUR 46 150.

Duration

The project must begin between 1 February 2009 and 30 June 2009 and end no later than 30 September 2010.

The eligibility period for costs will begin on the date specified in the contract, i.e. the project start date. Under no circumstances can the eligibility period for expenditure start before the date of submission of the grant application.

Expenditure incurred before the start of the activities will not be taken into account.

4.   Deadline for applications

The deadline for submission of applications to the European Commission is 31 October 2008, as per the postmark.

5.   Additional information

The full text (Specifications) of this call for proposals, the application form and the Applicants' guide are available on the following website:

http://ec.europa.eu/youth/index_en.htm

Applications must meet all the conditions in the full text of this call for proposals and be submitted using the form provided to that effect.

---

(1)  Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23).

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

| 1.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5279 — Linde/Flowserve/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 195/07)

| 1. | On 24 July 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Flowserve Corporation (‘Flowserve’, USA) and Linde AG (‘Linde’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Flowserve Compression Systems GmbH (‘Flowserve Compression’, Austria) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 24 July 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Flowserve Corporation (‘Flowserve’, USA) and Linde AG (‘Linde’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Flowserve Compression Systems GmbH (‘Flowserve Compression’, Austria) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

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






  — | for Flowserve: industrial pumps, valves, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Flowserve: industrial pumps, valves,

| — | for Linde: industrial gases, development of natural gas plants, logistics, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Linde: industrial gases, development of natural gas plants, logistics,

| — | for Flowserve Compression: refuelling systems for natural gas vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Flowserve Compression: refuelling systems for natural gas vehicles.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5279 — Linde/Flowserve/JV, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5279 — Linde/Flowserve/JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

---