# Official Journal C 375/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.375.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 375 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 555 December 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.375.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 375

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 555 December 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 375/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2012/C 375/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 19 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.462 (1) — Freight forwarding — Rapporteur: Slovak Republic | 2 |
| 2012/C 375/03 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 26 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.462 (2) — Freight forwarding — Rapporteur: Slovak Republic | 3 |
| 2012/C 375/04 | Final report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/39.462 — Freight forwarding | 4 |
| 2012/C 375/05 | Summary of Commission Decision of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.462 — Freight forwarding) (notified under document C(2012) 1959)
   (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2012/C 375/06 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 12 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 375/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2012/C 375/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 19 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.462 (1) — Freight forwarding — Rapporteur: Slovak Republic

2

2012/C 375/03

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 26 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.462 (2) — Freight forwarding — Rapporteur: Slovak Republic

3

2012/C 375/04

Final report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/39.462 — Freight forwarding

4

2012/C 375/05

Summary of Commission Decision of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.462 — Freight forwarding) (notified under document C(2012) 1959)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2012) 1959)

1

7

2012/C 375/06

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

12

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 375/07 | Call for proposals — EACEA/35/12 — Tempus IV — Reform of higher education through international university cooperation | 13 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 375/08 | Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures | 17 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 375/09 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 18 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2012/C 375/07

Call for proposals — EACEA/35/12 — Tempus IV — Reform of higher education through international university cooperation

13

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 375/08

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

17

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2012/C 375/09

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

18

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 December 2012

2012/C 375/01

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3092 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 107,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4604 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81230 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6265 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2136 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3465 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,243 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 282,39 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6964 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1291 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5343 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3367 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2497 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3013 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1463 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5866 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5941 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 419,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,5504 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1506 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5265 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 580,93 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9830 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,449 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,3515 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,179 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7575 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9802 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,5710 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3092

JPY

Japanese yen

107,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4604

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81230

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6265

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2136

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3465

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,243

HUF

Hungarian forint

282,39

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6964

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1291

RON

Romanian leu

4,5343

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3367

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2497

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3013

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1463

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5866

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5941

KRW

South Korean won

1 419,25

ZAR

South African rand

11,5504

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1506

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5265

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 580,93

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9830

PHP

Philippine peso

53,449

RUB

Russian rouble

40,3515

THB

Thai baht

40,179

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7575

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9802

INR

Indian rupee

71,5710

---

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

---

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 19 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.462 (1) — Freight forwarding

Rapporteur: Slovak Republic

2012/C 375/02

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s assessment of the facts as agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission’s assessment of the facts as agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees that the complex of agreements and/or concerted practices constitutes a single and continuous cartel infringement in the case of each of the following cartels in the time frame the respective infringements existed: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the complex of agreements and/or concerted practices constitutes a single and continuous cartel infringement in the case of each of the following cartels in the time frame the respective infringements existed: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the complex of agreements and/or concerted practices had the object of restricting competition in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the complex of agreements and/or concerted practices had the object of restricting competition in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment on the duration of the infringement for each addressee in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment on the duration of the infringement for each addressee in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreements and/or concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between the Member States of the EU and between other contracting parties to the EEA Agreement in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreements and/or concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between the Member States of the EU and between other contracting parties to the EEA Agreement in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, including the imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, including the imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

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

| 8. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points rased during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

8.

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

---

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 26 March 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.462 (2) — Freight forwarding

Rapporteur: Slovak Republic

2012/C 375/03

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the NES cartel; (b) the AMS cartel; (c) the CAF cartel; and (d) the PSS cartel.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the specific increases of the basic amounts of the fines so as to ensure a sufficiently deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the specific increases of the basic amounts of the fines so as to ensure a sufficiently deterrent effect.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances applicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances applicable in this case.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reductions of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reductions of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal. |
| --- | --- |

8.

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

---

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/4

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/39.462 — Freight forwarding

2012/C 375/04

I.   BACKGROUND

| (1) | The draft decision in this case concerns four separate cartels in the sector of freight forwarding services by air. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The draft decision in this case concerns four separate cartels in the sector of freight forwarding services by air.

| (2) | The procedure was initiated subsequent to an application for immunity by Deutsche Post AG (including DHL Global Freight Forwarding and Exel Ltd as well as several other subsidiaries and affiliates). In October 2007, the Commission conducted inspections pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 at the premises of certain freight forwarders. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The procedure was initiated subsequent to an application for immunity by Deutsche Post AG (including DHL Global Freight Forwarding and Exel Ltd as well as several other subsidiaries and affiliates). In October 2007, the Commission conducted inspections pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 at the premises of certain freight forwarders.

| (3) | Following the inspections, seven freight forwarders made applications under the Leniency Notice: Deutsche Bahn AG and its subsidiaries, in particular Schenker AG; Public Warehousing Company KSC; ABX; CEVA Group Plc. and Eagle Inc; Nippon Express Co. Ltd; [*]; and Yusen Air & Sea Service (Europe) BV. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Following the inspections, seven freight forwarders made applications under the Leniency Notice: Deutsche Bahn AG and its subsidiaries, in particular Schenker AG; Public Warehousing Company KSC; ABX; CEVA Group Plc. and Eagle Inc; Nippon Express Co. Ltd; [*]; and Yusen Air & Sea Service (Europe) BV.

II.   WRITTEN PROCEDURE

| (4) | On 5 February 2010, the Commission addressed a statement of objections (‘SO’) to 47 legal entities belonging to 15 groups of undertakings (‘the parties’) concerning alleged infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the freight forwarding sector (2). The SO covered four separate alleged infringements: the new export system (NES), the advanced manifest system (AMS), the currency adjustment factor (CAF), and the peak season surcharge (PSS) infringements. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 5 February 2010, the Commission addressed a statement of objections (‘SO’) to 47 legal entities belonging to 15 groups of undertakings (‘the parties’) concerning alleged infringements of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the freight forwarding sector (2). The SO covered four separate alleged infringements: the new export system (NES), the advanced manifest system (AMS), the currency adjustment factor (CAF), and the peak season surcharge (PSS) infringements.

| (5) | The parties were granted access to the file between 11 and 18 February 2010. The parties also received access to oral and written leniency statements at the Commission's premises. I did not receive any request for further access to the file. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The parties were granted access to the file between 11 and 18 February 2010. The parties also received access to oral and written leniency statements at the Commission's premises. I did not receive any request for further access to the file.

| (6) | The addressees of the SO were originally granted a deadline to reply to the SO within eight weeks from the day after access to the file was granted, i.e. between 9 and 16 April 2010. 13 parties (all except Deutsche Post AG and ABX) requested extensions, most of them on grounds that I found justified, at least in part. I granted extensions up to two weeks. All parties replied within the given deadlines. Almost all parties but one requested an oral hearing in their written replies. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The addressees of the SO were originally granted a deadline to reply to the SO within eight weeks from the day after access to the file was granted, i.e. between 9 and 16 April 2010. 13 parties (all except Deutsche Post AG and ABX) requested extensions, most of them on grounds that I found justified, at least in part. I granted extensions up to two weeks. All parties replied within the given deadlines. Almost all parties but one requested an oral hearing in their written replies.

III.   ORAL PROCEDURE

| (7) | The oral hearing was held on 6-9 July 2010. It was attended by representatives of all parties, except for the one party that did not request a hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The oral hearing was held on 6-9 July 2010. It was attended by representatives of all parties, except for the one party that did not request a hearing.

| (8) | Prior to the oral hearing, three parties requested to be heard partly in camera. I rejected two of the requests and granted one. At the oral hearing, however, I found, that the request to be heard in camera was not justified in many respects, as it contained little confidential information. Thus, I ordered the party concerned to orally present a summary of its in camera presentation to the other parties, and to submit a non-confidential version of their statement, which was received and circulated to all parties after the oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Prior to the oral hearing, three parties requested to be heard partly in camera. I rejected two of the requests and granted one. At the oral hearing, however, I found, that the request to be heard in camera was not justified in many respects, as it contained little confidential information. Thus, I ordered the party concerned to orally present a summary of its in camera presentation to the other parties, and to submit a non-confidential version of their statement, which was received and circulated to all parties after the oral hearing.

| (9) | At the oral hearing, some parties contested the validity of the immunity application of Deutsche Post AG on the basis that the external legal advisers that represented Deutsche Post AG in the proceedings allegedly acted in contradiction with the applicable Brussels bar rules and contract law. Since this issue acquired a certain importance during the hearing, I considered that it was appropriate and efficient to give all parties the possibility to submit comments after the oral hearing, which four parties did. The draft decision dismisses the claims brought against Deutsche Post AG's immunity application as unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

At the oral hearing, some parties contested the validity of the immunity application of Deutsche Post AG on the basis that the external legal advisers that represented Deutsche Post AG in the proceedings allegedly acted in contradiction with the applicable Brussels bar rules and contract law. Since this issue acquired a certain importance during the hearing, I considered that it was appropriate and efficient to give all parties the possibility to submit comments after the oral hearing, which four parties did. The draft decision dismisses the claims brought against Deutsche Post AG's immunity application as unfounded.

IV.   PROCEDURE AFTER THE ORAL HEARING

1.   Letter of facts

| (10) | In view of the arguments submitted by the parties in relation to the NES infringement concerning the establishment of effect on trade between Member States, the Commission carried out further fact-finding following the oral hearing. As a result, the Commission received supplementary information from the parties concerned. Since it intended to make use in the decision of some of this information to establish effect on trade in relation to the NES infringement, the Commission decided that it was appropriate to bring such information to the attention of the parties concerned by way of a letter (the ‘letter of facts’), sent on 20 September 2011, giving them two weeks to submit their views on the subject. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In view of the arguments submitted by the parties in relation to the NES infringement concerning the establishment of effect on trade between Member States, the Commission carried out further fact-finding following the oral hearing. As a result, the Commission received supplementary information from the parties concerned. Since it intended to make use in the decision of some of this information to establish effect on trade in relation to the NES infringement, the Commission decided that it was appropriate to bring such information to the attention of the parties concerned by way of a letter (the ‘letter of facts’), sent on 20 September 2011, giving them two weeks to submit their views on the subject.

| (11) | All parties concerned submitted written comments on the letter of facts. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

All parties concerned submitted written comments on the letter of facts.

| (12) | On a procedural level, one party, CEVA, complained that, first, it had been denied the opportunity of submitting its observations on the new evidence in the oral hearing and, moreover, that the nature of the conclusions that the Commission drew from the new evidence was so unclear that it had been hampered in its ability to make its view known on those conclusions. CEVA considered that its rights of defence had thereby been compromised. Second, CEVA claims that certain new evidence referred to in the letter of facts was requested at a late stage after the oral hearing (May 2011), and therefore that CEVA could reasonably have assumed that it would be used for the purpose of fines calculation, and not to support the objections set out in the SO. CEVA contends that this constitutes unfair behaviour on the part of the Commission, which compromised CEVA's rights of defence. Third, CEVA claims that, in breach of the principle of equal treatment, some of the evidence referred to in the letter of facts was obtained by the Commission from the immunity applicant in response to questions that were not asked to other parties. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

On a procedural level, one party, CEVA, complained that, first, it had been denied the opportunity of submitting its observations on the new evidence in the oral hearing and, moreover, that the nature of the conclusions that the Commission drew from the new evidence was so unclear that it had been hampered in its ability to make its view known on those conclusions. CEVA considered that its rights of defence had thereby been compromised. Second, CEVA claims that certain new evidence referred to in the letter of facts was requested at a late stage after the oral hearing (May 2011), and therefore that CEVA could reasonably have assumed that it would be used for the purpose of fines calculation, and not to support the objections set out in the SO. CEVA contends that this constitutes unfair behaviour on the part of the Commission, which compromised CEVA's rights of defence. Third, CEVA claims that, in breach of the principle of equal treatment, some of the evidence referred to in the letter of facts was obtained by the Commission from the immunity applicant in response to questions that were not asked to other parties.

| (13) | In light of my duty to ensure the effective exercise of the parties' procedural rights (3), I have reviewed the claims put forward by CEVA. I conclude that CEVA has been able to effectively exercise its rights of defence in connection with the issues covered by the letter of facts, for the reasons set out below:






  — | First, as regards the claim that the company has not been able to comment on the evidence referred to in the letter of facts at the oral hearing, I note the Commission is entitled to send to the parties after the statement of objections fresh documents which it considers support its argument, subject to giving the undertakings the necessary time to submit their views on the subject (4). In the present case, CEVA was given the opportunity to comment on the issues covered by the letter of facts, and made use of this possibility. As regards the claim that the conclusions in the letter of facts were so unclear that CEVA was hampered in its ability to make its view known on those conclusions, I note that no specific elements are provided in support of this contention. Further, CEVA was able to submit a 31 pages' response, which addresses each ‘possible inference’ set out in the letter of facts, and discusses extensively the evidence on which the Commission said it intends to rely. Finally, none of the other addressees claimed that the conclusions set out in the letter of facts were unclear. I therefore consider that CEVA's claim is without merit. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(13)

In light of my duty to ensure the effective exercise of the parties' procedural rights (3), I have reviewed the claims put forward by CEVA. I conclude that CEVA has been able to effectively exercise its rights of defence in connection with the issues covered by the letter of facts, for the reasons set out below:

—

First, as regards the claim that the company has not been able to comment on the evidence referred to in the letter of facts at the oral hearing, I note the Commission is entitled to send to the parties after the statement of objections fresh documents which it considers support its argument, subject to giving the undertakings the necessary time to submit their views on the subject (4). In the present case, CEVA was given the opportunity to comment on the issues covered by the letter of facts, and made use of this possibility. As regards the claim that the conclusions in the letter of facts were so unclear that CEVA was hampered in its ability to make its view known on those conclusions, I note that no specific elements are provided in support of this contention. Further, CEVA was able to submit a 31 pages' response, which addresses each ‘possible inference’ set out in the letter of facts, and discusses extensively the evidence on which the Commission said it intends to rely. Finally, none of the other addressees claimed that the conclusions set out in the letter of facts were unclear. I therefore consider that CEVA's claim is without merit.

| — | Second, as regards the allegedly unfair behaviour of the Commission, I find that there was no indication in the request for information of the Commission of May 2011 that the requested information was to be used for the purpose of fines calculation, and not for any other purpose, such as investigating the issue of effect on trade in the NES infringement. CEVA was wrong to assume that the Commission was requesting the information exclusively for fining purposes, and cannot therefore claim that the Commission acted in an unfair manner on this basis. It is indeed legitimate for the Commission to institute fresh inquiries during the administrative procedure if it appears from the course of that procedure that additional investigations are necessary (5). |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, as regards the allegedly unfair behaviour of the Commission, I find that there was no indication in the request for information of the Commission of May 2011 that the requested information was to be used for the purpose of fines calculation, and not for any other purpose, such as investigating the issue of effect on trade in the NES infringement. CEVA was wrong to assume that the Commission was requesting the information exclusively for fining purposes, and cannot therefore claim that the Commission acted in an unfair manner on this basis. It is indeed legitimate for the Commission to institute fresh inquiries during the administrative procedure if it appears from the course of that procedure that additional investigations are necessary (5).

| — | Third, as regards the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment, it is settled case law that the Commission enjoys a freedom of action in the conduct of its investigations and is under no obligation to put the same questions, during an investigation, to all the undertakings which it suspects of participating in an infringement (6). |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, as regards the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment, it is settled case law that the Commission enjoys a freedom of action in the conduct of its investigations and is under no obligation to put the same questions, during an investigation, to all the undertakings which it suspects of participating in an infringement (6).

2.   Letter from DG Competition concerning the fine calculation

| (14) | On 25 October 2011, DG Competition addressed a letter to the parties in which it indicated that the Commission may use certain sales data as the basis for the ‘value of sales’ calculation and thus, pursuant to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (7), as the basis for any fine that may be imposed. The parties were given two weeks to submit observations on this issue. Some parties submitted observations to DG Competition. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

On 25 October 2011, DG Competition addressed a letter to the parties in which it indicated that the Commission may use certain sales data as the basis for the ‘value of sales’ calculation and thus, pursuant to the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (7), as the basis for any fine that may be imposed. The parties were given two weeks to submit observations on this issue. Some parties submitted observations to DG Competition.

| (15) | In its observations, Deutsche Bahn AG (8) requested to be granted access to the file of Case COMP/39.258 — Air freight (9) on the basis that it was necessary for it to be able to assess and comment on the Commission's basis for calculating the fines in the present case. The Commission has not responded directly to the request (10). However, at the time of drafting of this report, more than three months have lapsed since the request, and, although Deutsche Bahn could have assumed from such timing that its request was being rejected, it has not brought the matter to my attention for independent review pursuant to Article 3(7) of Decision 2011/695/EU. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In its observations, Deutsche Bahn AG (8) requested to be granted access to the file of Case COMP/39.258 — Air freight (9) on the basis that it was necessary for it to be able to assess and comment on the Commission's basis for calculating the fines in the present case. The Commission has not responded directly to the request (10). However, at the time of drafting of this report, more than three months have lapsed since the request, and, although Deutsche Bahn could have assumed from such timing that its request was being rejected, it has not brought the matter to my attention for independent review pursuant to Article 3(7) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

V.   THE DRAFT COMMISSION DECISION

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

(16)

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

| (17) | I also note that the Commission has decided not to pursue objections against three companies which were addressees of the statement of objections, including two companies which had previously been held jointly and severally liable with their respective subsidiaries and one company held directly liable for the infringement but excluded from the decision in light of evidence justifying the imputation of liability to another company of the same undertaking. Further, compared to the statement of objections, a shorter duration has been retained in the draft decision against certain undertakings as regards the AMS, CAF and PSS infringements. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

I also note that the Commission has decided not to pursue objections against three companies which were addressees of the statement of objections, including two companies which had previously been held jointly and severally liable with their respective subsidiaries and one company held directly liable for the infringement but excluded from the decision in light of evidence justifying the imputation of liability to another company of the same undertaking. Further, compared to the statement of objections, a shorter duration has been retained in the draft decision against certain undertakings as regards the AMS, CAF and PSS infringements.

VI.   CONCLUDING REMARKS

| (18) | I conclude that the parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

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

Brussels, 26 March 2012.

Michael ALBERS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

1

(2)  Freight forwarding services are defined by the Commission in the decision as ‘the organisation of transportation of items (possibly including activities such as customs clearance, warehousing, ground services etc.) on behalf of customers according to their needs. Freight forwarding services have been segmented into domestic and international freight forwarding and freight forwarding by air, land and sea’ (decision, recital 3). The infringements described in the decision all relate to the provision of freight forwarding services by air.

2

(3)  Article 1(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

3

(4)  Case T-23/99, LR AF 1998 A/S, formerly Løgstør Rør A/S v Commission of the European Communities, [2002] ECR, p. II-1705, paragraph 190.

4

LR AF 1998 A/S, formerly Løgstør Rør A/S

Commission of the European Communities

(5)  See, for example, Case C-52/69, J.R. Geigy AG v Commission, [1972] ECR, p. 787, paragraph 14.

5

J.R. Geigy AG

Commission

(6)  Case T-48/00, Corus UK v Commission, [2004] ECR II-2331, paragraph 212.

6

Corus UK

Commission

(7)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2).

7

(8)  And related companies, Schenker AG, Schenker Limited, Schenker China Ltd. and Schenker International (H.K.) Ltd.

8

(9)  Information on this case can be found on here: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html

9

(10)  Instead, the request is rejected by the Commission in the draft decision.

10

---

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/7

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 28 March 2012

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/39.462 — Freight forwarding)

(notified under document C(2012) 1959)

(Only the English and German texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 375/05

On 28 March 2012, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | On 28 March 2012, the Commission adopted a decision relating to four separate infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the freight forwarding sector. By these infringements the addressees of the decision coordinated their pricing behaviour in the provision of international freight forwarding services with respect to four different surcharges/charging mechanisms: new export system (NES), advanced manifest system (AMS), currency adjustment factor (CAF) and peak season surcharge (PSS). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 28 March 2012, the Commission adopted a decision relating to four separate infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the freight forwarding sector. By these infringements the addressees of the decision coordinated their pricing behaviour in the provision of international freight forwarding services with respect to four different surcharges/charging mechanisms: new export system (NES), advanced manifest system (AMS), currency adjustment factor (CAF) and peak season surcharge (PSS).

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

| (2) | Following the immunity application of Deutsche Post AG under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission carried out inspections on 10 October 2007 and received subsequent leniency applications from Deutsche Bahn AG, Public Warehousing Company, KSC, ABX Logistics, CEVA Group Plc., Nippon Express Co., Ltd, [*] and Yusen group. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the immunity application of Deutsche Post AG under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission carried out inspections on 10 October 2007 and received subsequent leniency applications from Deutsche Bahn AG, Public Warehousing Company, KSC, ABX Logistics, CEVA Group Plc., Nippon Express Co., Ltd, [*] and Yusen group.

| (3) | On 5 February 2010, the Commission adopted a statement of objections in this case. All addressees of the statement of objections made known in writing their views on the objections raised against them and were given the opportunity to exercise their right to be heard by participating in an oral hearing that was held on 6-9 July 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 5 February 2010, the Commission adopted a statement of objections in this case. All addressees of the statement of objections made known in writing their views on the objections raised against them and were given the opportunity to exercise their right to be heard by participating in an oral hearing that was held on 6-9 July 2010.

| (4) | The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions issued a favourable opinion on 19 and 26 March 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions issued a favourable opinion on 19 and 26 March 2012.

2.2.   Summary of the infringements

| (5) | The NES is a pre-clearance system for UK exports outside the EEA which was introduced by UK authorities in 2002. Several freight forwarders organised one meeting of a group of forwarders and in that meeting they agreed to introduce a surcharge for NES declarations. They further agreed on the level and timing of the introduction of the surcharge. Following the meeting, the cartel participants exchanged several e-mails in order to monitor the implementation of the agreement on the market. The anticompetitive contacts lasted from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The NES is a pre-clearance system for UK exports outside the EEA which was introduced by UK authorities in 2002. Several freight forwarders organised one meeting of a group of forwarders and in that meeting they agreed to introduce a surcharge for NES declarations. They further agreed on the level and timing of the introduction of the surcharge. Following the meeting, the cartel participants exchanged several e-mails in order to monitor the implementation of the agreement on the market. The anticompetitive contacts lasted from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003.

| (6) | The AMS is a customs procedure introduced by US authorities which requires delivery of information regarding cargo shipments prior to their arrival to the US territory. A number of freight forwarders had several meetings already prior to the implementation of the new measures by the US authorities, during which they coordinated their pricing behaviour. The main forum for their discussions was the freight forwarders' association Freight Forward Europe (since 2004 Freight Forward International). The freight forwarders agreed on the introduction of the surcharge and on the fact that the AMS surcharge should not be used as a tool for competition among them. The freight forwarders also attempted to agree on the amount of the surcharge and at some instances exchanged its intended levels. The cartel contacts took place between 19 March 2003 and 19 August 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The AMS is a customs procedure introduced by US authorities which requires delivery of information regarding cargo shipments prior to their arrival to the US territory. A number of freight forwarders had several meetings already prior to the implementation of the new measures by the US authorities, during which they coordinated their pricing behaviour. The main forum for their discussions was the freight forwarders' association Freight Forward Europe (since 2004 Freight Forward International). The freight forwarders agreed on the introduction of the surcharge and on the fact that the AMS surcharge should not be used as a tool for competition among them. The freight forwarders also attempted to agree on the amount of the surcharge and at some instances exchanged its intended levels. The cartel contacts took place between 19 March 2003 and 19 August 2004.

| (7) | The CAF cartel originated as a reaction to the appreciation of the Chinese currency Renminbi (RMB) against the US dollar in 2005. Several global freight forwarders active on the Chinese market organised and attended a number of meetings to discuss on a common approach and agreed on: (i) a shift of all contracts with their customers to RMB and, if this was not possible, (ii) an introduction of a surcharge (a currency adjustment factor) and its level. During the subsequent meetings and e-mail exchanges, the undertakings further shared their experience with the acceptance of the agreed measures on the market. The discussions took place in China between 27 July 2005 and 13 March 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The CAF cartel originated as a reaction to the appreciation of the Chinese currency Renminbi (RMB) against the US dollar in 2005. Several global freight forwarders active on the Chinese market organised and attended a number of meetings to discuss on a common approach and agreed on: (i) a shift of all contracts with their customers to RMB and, if this was not possible, (ii) an introduction of a surcharge (a currency adjustment factor) and its level. During the subsequent meetings and e-mail exchanges, the undertakings further shared their experience with the acceptance of the agreed measures on the market. The discussions took place in China between 27 July 2005 and 13 March 2006.

| (8) | PSS is a temporary rate adjustment that freight forwarders agreed to apply in specific peak season time periods. This rate adjustment followed seasonal increases in demand for transport services on specific lanes resulting in an increase of prices for these services. A number of freight forwarders gathered in Hong Kong at several so called ‘Breakfast Meetings’ where they agreed on the introduction of the surcharge on the lane from Hong Kong/South China to Europe and on the timing of its imposition. Moreover, at some instances the undertakings also discussed the level of the PSS. The undertakings agreed on introduction of the PSS for each of the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the cartel contacts took place from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

PSS is a temporary rate adjustment that freight forwarders agreed to apply in specific peak season time periods. This rate adjustment followed seasonal increases in demand for transport services on specific lanes resulting in an increase of prices for these services. A number of freight forwarders gathered in Hong Kong at several so called ‘Breakfast Meetings’ where they agreed on the introduction of the surcharge on the lane from Hong Kong/South China to Europe and on the timing of its imposition. Moreover, at some instances the undertakings also discussed the level of the PSS. The undertakings agreed on introduction of the PSS for each of the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the cartel contacts took place from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007.

2.3.   Addressees

| (9) | The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in four separate infringements in the air freight forwarding sector, which consisted of fixing prices or other trading conditions: |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in four separate infringements in the air freight forwarding sector, which consisted of fixing prices or other trading conditions:

| (10) | In case of the NES infringement, covering the territory of the United Kingdom:






  (a) | Schenker Limited (as an economic successor of BAX Global Ltd (UK)) from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(10)

In case of the NES infringement, covering the territory of the United Kingdom:

(a)

Schenker Limited (as an economic successor of BAX Global Ltd (UK)) from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003;

| (b) | CEVA Freight (UK) Limited, EGL, Inc. from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

CEVA Freight (UK) Limited, EGL, Inc. from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003;

| (c) | DHL Global Forwarding (UK) Limited, Deutsche Post AG from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

DHL Global Forwarding (UK) Limited, Deutsche Post AG from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003;

| (d) | Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited, Exel Limited from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited, Exel Limited from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003;

| (e) | Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in the United Kingdom), Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in the United Kingdom), Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003;

| (f) | UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (as an economic successor of Menlo Worldwide Forwarding, Inc.) from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (as an economic successor of Menlo Worldwide Forwarding, Inc.) from 1 October 2002 until 10 March 2003.

| (11) | In case of the AMS infringement, covering the whole European Economic Area:






  (a) | DSV Air & Sea SAS from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(11)

In case of the AMS infringement, covering the whole European Economic Area:

(a)

DSV Air & Sea SAS from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004;

| (b) | Agility Logistics Limited from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Agility Logistics Limited from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004;

| (c) | DHL Management (Schweiz) AG, Deutsche Post AG from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

DHL Management (Schweiz) AG, Deutsche Post AG from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004;

| (d) | Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited from 25 March 2003 until 19 August 2004, Exel Group Holdings (Nederland) BV from 21 October 2003 until 19 August 2004, Exel Limited from 25 March 2003 until 19 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited from 25 March 2003 until 19 August 2004, Exel Group Holdings (Nederland) BV from 21 October 2003 until 19 August 2004, Exel Limited from 25 March 2003 until 19 August 2004;

| (e) | Kuehne + Nagel Management AG, Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 8 April 2003 until 19 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Kuehne + Nagel Management AG, Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 8 April 2003 until 19 August 2004;

| (f) | Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Panalpina Management AG, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004;

| (g) | Schenker AG, Deutsche Bahn AG from 25 March 2003 until 19 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Schenker AG, Deutsche Bahn AG from 25 March 2003 until 19 August 2004;

| (h) | UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., United Parcel Service, Inc. from 19 March 2003 until 21 October 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., United Parcel Service, Inc. from 19 March 2003 until 21 October 2003;

| (i) | UTi Worldwide (UK) Ltd from 19 March 2003 until 21 October 2003, UTi Nederland BV from 21 October 2003 until 19 August 2004, UTi Worldwide, Inc. from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

UTi Worldwide (UK) Ltd from 19 March 2003 until 21 October 2003, UTi Nederland BV from 21 October 2003 until 19 August 2004, UTi Worldwide, Inc. from 19 March 2003 until 19 August 2004.

| (12) | In case of the CAF infringement, covering the whole European Economic Area:






  (a) | Schenker China Ltd (as an economic successor of BAX Global (China) Co. Ltd) from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(12)

In case of the CAF infringement, covering the whole European Economic Area:

(a)

Schenker China Ltd (as an economic successor of BAX Global (China) Co. Ltd) from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (b) | Schenker China Ltd, Deutsche Bahn AG from 29 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Schenker China Ltd, Deutsche Bahn AG from 29 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (c) | Beijing Kintetsu World Express Co., Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Beijing Kintetsu World Express Co., Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (d) | CEVA Freight Shanghai Limited, EGL, Inc. from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

CEVA Freight Shanghai Limited, EGL, Inc. from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (e) | DHL Global Forwarding (China) Co. Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

DHL Global Forwarding (China) Co. Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (f) | DHL Logistics (China) Co., Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

DHL Logistics (China) Co., Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (g) | Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Shanghai), Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Shanghai), Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (h) | Nippon Express (China) Co., Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 31 October 2005; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Nippon Express (China) Co., Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 31 October 2005;

| (i) | Panalpina China Ltd, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 9 December 2005; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Panalpina China Ltd, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 9 December 2005;

| (j) | UPS SCS (China) Ltd, United Parcel Service, Inc. from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

UPS SCS (China) Ltd, United Parcel Service, Inc. from 27 July 2005 until 13 March 2006;

| (k) | Yusen Shenda Air & Sea Service (Shanghai) Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 31 October 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(k)

Yusen Shenda Air & Sea Service (Shanghai) Ltd from 27 July 2005 until 31 October 2005.

| (13) | In case of the PSS infringement, covering the whole European Economic Area:






  (a) | Agility Logistics Limited (Hong Kong) from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(13)

In case of the PSS infringement, covering the whole European Economic Area:

(a)

Agility Logistics Limited (Hong Kong) from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007;

| (b) | DHL Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited, Deutsche Post AG from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

DHL Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited, Deutsche Post AG from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007;

| (c) | DHL Supply Chain (Hong Kong) Limited, Exel Limited from 9 August 2005 until 13 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

DHL Supply Chain (Hong Kong) Limited, Exel Limited from 9 August 2005 until 13 January 2006;

| (d) | Expeditors Hong Kong Ltd, Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. from 21 September 2005 until 23 June 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Expeditors Hong Kong Ltd, Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. from 21 September 2005 until 23 June 2006;

| (e) | Hellmann Worldwide Logistics Ltd Hong Kong, Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG from 6 December 2005 until 21 May 2007; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Hellmann Worldwide Logistics Ltd Hong Kong, Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG from 6 December 2005 until 21 May 2007;

| (f) | Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Hong Kong), Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Hong Kong), Kuehne + Nagel International AG from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007;

| (g) | Panalpina China Ltd, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Panalpina China Ltd, Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007;

| (h) | Schenker International (HK) Ltd, Deutsche Bahn AG from 3 September 2005 until 23 June 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Schenker International (HK) Ltd, Deutsche Bahn AG from 3 September 2005 until 23 June 2006;

| (i) | Toll Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited, Toll Global Forwarding Limited from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Toll Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited, Toll Global Forwarding Limited from 9 August 2005 until 21 May 2007.

2.4.   Remedies

| (14) | The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2).

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

| (15) | In view of the short duration of the NES, AMS and CAF infringements, the Commission calculated a proxy for annual value of sales (based on the actual value of freight forwarding sales in the EEA made by the undertakings in the relevant period of their participation in the infringements) to be used as the basis for the calculation of the basic amount of the fines to be imposed for each of the infringements. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In view of the short duration of the NES, AMS and CAF infringements, the Commission calculated a proxy for annual value of sales (based on the actual value of freight forwarding sales in the EEA made by the undertakings in the relevant period of their participation in the infringements) to be used as the basis for the calculation of the basic amount of the fines to be imposed for each of the infringements.

| (16) | In view of the seasonal characteristics of the PSS infringement, the Commission calculated a proxy for annual value of sales (based on the actual value of freight forwarding sales in the EEA made by the undertakings in the relevant peak season periods within their participation in the PSS infringement) to be used as the basis for the calculation of the basic amount of the fines to be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

In view of the seasonal characteristics of the PSS infringement, the Commission calculated a proxy for annual value of sales (based on the actual value of freight forwarding sales in the EEA made by the undertakings in the relevant peak season periods within their participation in the PSS infringement) to be used as the basis for the calculation of the basic amount of the fines to be imposed.

| (17) | Considering the nature of the infringements and their geographic scope, the percentage for the variable amount of the fine and the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 16 % of the value of sales for the AMS, CAF and PSS infringements and at 15 % of the value of sales for the NES infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Considering the nature of the infringements and their geographic scope, the percentage for the variable amount of the fine and the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 16 % of the value of sales for the AMS, CAF and PSS infringements and at 15 % of the value of sales for the NES infringement.

| (18) | The variable amount is multiplied by the number of years or by fractions of the year respectively of the company's participation in the infringement in order to take fully into account the duration of the participation for each undertaking in the infringement individually. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The variable amount is multiplied by the number of years or by fractions of the year respectively of the company's participation in the infringement in order to take fully into account the duration of the participation for each undertaking in the infringement individually.

| (19) | The NES cartel lasted for five months in the case of all companies. The variable amount was multiplied by 0,41. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The NES cartel lasted for five months in the case of all companies. The variable amount was multiplied by 0,41.

| (20) | The AMS cartel lasted for one year and five months in the case of all companies (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,41) except for Exel Limited group, Kuehne + Nagel International AG group and Deutsche Bahn AG group, for which the duration was one year and four months (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,33), and United Parcel Service, Inc. group, for which the duration was seven months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,58). |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The AMS cartel lasted for one year and five months in the case of all companies (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,41) except for Exel Limited group, Kuehne + Nagel International AG group and Deutsche Bahn AG group, for which the duration was one year and four months (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,33), and United Parcel Service, Inc. group, for which the duration was seven months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,58).

| (21) | The CAF cartel lasted for seven months in the case of all companies (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,58) except for Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, for which the duration was four months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,33) and Nippon Express (China) Co., Ltd and Yusen Shenda Air & Sea Service (Shanghai) Ltd, for which the duration was three months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,25). |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The CAF cartel lasted for seven months in the case of all companies (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,58) except for Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, for which the duration was four months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,33) and Nippon Express (China) Co., Ltd and Yusen Shenda Air & Sea Service (Shanghai) Ltd, for which the duration was three months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,25).

| (22) | The PSS cartel lasted for one year and nine months in the case of all companies (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,75) except for Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG group, for which the duration was one year and five months (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,41), Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. group and Deutsche Bahn AG group, for which the duration was nine months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,75) and Exel Limited group, for which the duration was five months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,41). |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The PSS cartel lasted for one year and nine months in the case of all companies (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,75) except for Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG group, for which the duration was one year and five months (the variable amount is multiplied by 1,41), Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. group and Deutsche Bahn AG group, for which the duration was nine months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,75) and Exel Limited group, for which the duration was five months (the variable amount is multiplied by 0,41).

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

| (23) | There are no aggravating or attenuating factors taken into account by the Commission in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

There are no aggravating or attenuating factors taken into account by the Commission in this case.

2.4.3.   Specific increase for deterrence

| (24) | In this case, a deterrence multiplier of 1,2 is applied in to Deutsche Post AG group (in relation to the NES, AMS and PSS infringements) and of 1,1 to Deutsche Bahn AG group (in relation to the AMS and PSS infringements) and United Parcel Service, Inc. group (in relation to the AMS and CAF infringements). |
| --- | --- |

(24)

In this case, a deterrence multiplier of 1,2 is applied in to Deutsche Post AG group (in relation to the NES, AMS and PSS infringements) and of 1,1 to Deutsche Bahn AG group (in relation to the AMS and PSS infringements) and United Parcel Service, Inc. group (in relation to the AMS and CAF infringements).

2.4.4.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| (25) | The final individual amounts of the fines are below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of the addressed undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The final individual amounts of the fines are below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of the addressed undertakings.

2.4.5.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

| (26) | Deutsche Post AG group was the first undertaking to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice. The fine to be imposed is reduced by 100 % for all four infringements. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Deutsche Post AG group was the first undertaking to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice. The fine to be imposed is reduced by 100 % for all four infringements.

| (27) | Deutsche Bahn AG group is granted a 25 % reduction for the AMS infringement, 20 % reduction for the CAF infringement and 50 % reduction for the PSS infringement, which also includes an additional reduction in application of the last paragraph of point 26 of the Leniency Notice to the extent that the information provided by Deutsche Bahn AG group enabled the Commission to establish facts extending the duration of the PSS infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

Deutsche Bahn AG group is granted a 25 % reduction for the AMS infringement, 20 % reduction for the CAF infringement and 50 % reduction for the PSS infringement, which also includes an additional reduction in application of the last paragraph of point 26 of the Leniency Notice to the extent that the information provided by Deutsche Bahn AG group enabled the Commission to establish facts extending the duration of the PSS infringement.

| (28) | Public Warehousing Company, KSC group is granted a 30 % reduction for the AMS infringement and 25 % reduction for the PSS infringement |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Public Warehousing Company, KSC group is granted a 30 % reduction for the AMS infringement and 25 % reduction for the PSS infringement

| (29) | CEVA Group Plc. group is granted a 35 % reduction for the NES infringement and 50 % reduction for the CAF infringement, which also includes an additional reduction in application of the last paragraph of point 26 of the Leniency Notice to the extent that the information provided by CEVA enabled the Commission to establish facts extending the duration of the CAF infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

CEVA Group Plc. group is granted a 35 % reduction for the NES infringement and 50 % reduction for the CAF infringement, which also includes an additional reduction in application of the last paragraph of point 26 of the Leniency Notice to the extent that the information provided by CEVA enabled the Commission to establish facts extending the duration of the CAF infringement.

| (30) | Yusen group was granted a 5 % reduction for the CAF infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Yusen group was granted a 5 % reduction for the CAF infringement.

3.   FINES IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

| (31) | For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the NES, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Schenker Limited (as an economic successor of BAX Global Ltd (UK)): EUR 3 673 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(31)

For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the NES, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Schenker Limited (as an economic successor of BAX Global Ltd (UK)): EUR 3 673 000;

| (b) | CEVA Freight (UK) Limited and EGL, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 2 094 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

CEVA Freight (UK) Limited and EGL, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 2 094 000;

| (c) | DHL Global Forwarding (UK) Limited and Deutsche Post AG: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

DHL Global Forwarding (UK) Limited and Deutsche Post AG: EUR 0;

| (d) | Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited and Exel Limited: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited and Exel Limited: EUR 0;

| (e) | Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in the United Kingdom) and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 5 320 000; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in the United Kingdom) and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 5 320 000;

| (f) | UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (as an economic successor of Menlo Worldwide Forwarding, Inc.): EUR 2 264 000. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (as an economic successor of Menlo Worldwide Forwarding, Inc.): EUR 2 264 000.

| (32) | For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the AMS, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | DSV Air & Sea SAS: EUR 379 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(32)

For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the AMS, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

DSV Air & Sea SAS: EUR 379 000;

| (b) | Agility Logistics Limited: EUR 2 296 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Agility Logistics Limited: EUR 2 296 000;

| (c) | DHL Management (Schweiz) AG and Deutsche Post AG: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

DHL Management (Schweiz) AG and Deutsche Post AG: EUR 0;

| (d) | Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited, Exel Group Holdings (Nederland) BV and Exel Limited: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Exel Freight Management (UK) Limited, Exel Group Holdings (Nederland) BV and Exel Limited: EUR 0;

| (e) | Kuehne + Nagel Management AG and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 36 686 000; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Kuehne + Nagel Management AG and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 36 686 000;

| (f) | Panalpina Management AG and Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, jointly and severally liable: EUR 23 649 000; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Panalpina Management AG and Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, jointly and severally liable: EUR 23 649 000;

| (g) | Schenker AG, and Deutsche Bahn AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 23 091 000; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Schenker AG, and Deutsche Bahn AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 23 091 000;

| (h) | UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 582 000; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 582 000;

| (i) | UTi Worldwide, Inc., UTi Worldwide (UK) Ltd and UTi Nederland BV, jointly and severally liable: EUR 1 273 000; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

UTi Worldwide, Inc., UTi Worldwide (UK) Ltd and UTi Nederland BV, jointly and severally liable: EUR 1 273 000;

| (j) | UTi Worldwide, Inc.: EUR 1 795 000 of which jointly and severally liable with UTi Worldwide (UK) Ltd: EUR 738 000 and UTi Nederland BV: EUR 954 000. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

UTi Worldwide, Inc.: EUR 1 795 000 of which jointly and severally liable with UTi Worldwide (UK) Ltd: EUR 738 000 and UTi Nederland BV: EUR 954 000.

| (33) | For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the CAF, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Schenker China Ltd (as an economic successor of BAX Global (China) Co. Ltd): EUR 2 444 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(33)

For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the CAF, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Schenker China Ltd (as an economic successor of BAX Global (China) Co. Ltd): EUR 2 444 000;

| (b) | Schenker China Ltd and Deutsche Bahn AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 071 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Schenker China Ltd and Deutsche Bahn AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 071 000;

| (c) | Beijing Kintetsu World Express Co., Ltd: EUR 623 000; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Beijing Kintetsu World Express Co., Ltd: EUR 623 000;

| (d) | CEVA Freight Shanghai Limited and EGL, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 935 000; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

CEVA Freight Shanghai Limited and EGL, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 935 000;

| (e) | DHL Global Forwarding (China) Co. Ltd: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

DHL Global Forwarding (China) Co. Ltd: EUR 0;

| (f) | DHL Logistics (China) Co., Ltd: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

DHL Logistics (China) Co., Ltd: EUR 0;

| (g) | Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Shanghai) and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 451 000; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Shanghai) and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 451 000;

| (h) | Nippon Express (China) Co., Ltd: EUR 812 000; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Nippon Express (China) Co., Ltd: EUR 812 000;

| (i) | Panalpina China Ltd and Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 251 000; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Panalpina China Ltd and Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 251 000;

| (j) | UPS SCS (China) Ltd, and United Parcel Service, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 916 000; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

UPS SCS (China) Ltd, and United Parcel Service, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 3 916 000;

| (k) | Yusen Shenda Air & Sea Service (Shanghai) Ltd: EUR 319 000. |
| --- | --- |

(k)

Yusen Shenda Air & Sea Service (Shanghai) Ltd: EUR 319 000.

| (34) | For the PSS infringement, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Agility Logistics Limited (Hong Kong): EUR 2 662 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(34)

For the PSS infringement, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Agility Logistics Limited (Hong Kong): EUR 2 662 000;

| (b) | DHL Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited and Deutsche Post AG: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

DHL Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited and Deutsche Post AG: EUR 0;

| (c) | DHL Supply Chain (Hong Kong) Limited and Exel Limited: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

DHL Supply Chain (Hong Kong) Limited and Exel Limited: EUR 0;

| (d) | Expeditors Hong Kong Ltd and Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 4 140 000; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Expeditors Hong Kong Ltd and Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 4 140 000;

| (e) | Hellmann Worldwide Logistics Ltd Hong Kong and Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 4 281 000; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Hellmann Worldwide Logistics Ltd Hong Kong and Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 4 281 000;

| (f) | Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Hong Kong) and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 11 217 000; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Kuehne + Nagel Ltd (entity based in Hong Kong) and Kuehne + Nagel International AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 11 217 000;

| (g) | Panalpina China Ltd and Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, jointly and severally liable: EUR 19 584 000; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Panalpina China Ltd and Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd, jointly and severally liable: EUR 19 584 000;

| (h) | Schenker International (HK) Ltd and Deutsche Bahn AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 2 656 000; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Schenker International (HK) Ltd and Deutsche Bahn AG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 2 656 000;

| (i) | Toll Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited and Toll Global Forwarding Limited, jointly and severally liable: EUR 2 918 000. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Toll Global Forwarding (Hong Kong) Limited and Toll Global Forwarding Limited, jointly and severally liable: EUR 2 918 000.

---

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

(2)  OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.

---

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/12

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2012/C 375/06

Image

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Malta

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the Community providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Malta

Subject of commemoration: Majority Representation 1887

Description of the design: The design was created by the Maltese artist Gianni Bonnici and it shows a jubilant crowd with the Governor’s Palace, in Valletta, depicted in the background. At the top of the inner ring, in a semicircle, the inscription ‘MALTA — Majority representation 1887’. At the bottom the year ‘2012’.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued:

Date of issue: September 2012

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/13

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EACEA/35/12

Tempus IV — Reform of higher education through international university cooperation

2012/C 375/07

1.   Objectives and description

The fourth phase of the Tempus programme covers the period from 2007 to 2013.

The overall objective of the programme is to support the modernisation of higher education in the EU's surrounding area. The Tempus programme promotes institutional cooperation and focuses on the reform and modernisation of higher education systems in the partner countries. It contributes to an area of cooperation in higher education involving the European Union and partner countries in its wider proximity. In particular, the programme will promote voluntary convergence with EU developments in the field of higher education, deriving from the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) and the Bologna process.

The purpose of this call for proposals is to promote multilateral cooperation among higher education institutions, authorities and organisations from EU Member States and partner countries, with the focus on the reform and modernisation of higher education.

The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (‘the Agency’), acting under powers delegated from the European Commission (‘the Commission’), is responsible for the management of this call for proposals.

2.   Eligible applicants

In order to be eligible for the award of a grant, applicants must be legal persons (‘legal entities’), legally established for more than five years in the EU or Tempus partner countries.

Applicants for Joint Projects must be State-recognised, public or private higher education institutions or associations, organisations or networks of higher education institutions dedicated to the promotion, improvement and reform of higher education.

Applicants for Structural Measures must be legal entities as stipulated above for Joint Projects or national or international rector, teacher or student organisations.

Institutions and organisations which may participate as partners/co-beneficiaries in the Tempus programme range from higher education institutions and organisations through to non-academic institutions and organisations such as non-governmental organisations, companies, industries and public authorities.

These institutions and organisations have to be based in the following four groups of eligible countries:

| — | 27 Member States of the European Union and Croatia (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

27 Member States of the European Union and Croatia (1),

| — | 4 countries of the Western Balkan region (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia) and Kosovo (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

4 countries of the Western Balkan region (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia) and Kosovo (2),

| — | 16 countries in the Southern and Eastern neighbouring area of the European Union (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, the occupied Palestinian territory, Syria, Tunisia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine) and the Russian Federation, |
| --- | --- |

—

16 countries in the Southern and Eastern neighbouring area of the European Union (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, the occupied Palestinian territory, Syria, Tunisia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine) and the Russian Federation,

| — | 5 Central Asian Republics: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. |
| --- | --- |

—

5 Central Asian Republics: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

3.   Eligible actions

The two principal instruments for cooperation through this Tempus call for proposals are:

| — | Joint Projects: projects with a ‘bottom-up’ approach aiming at modernisation and reform on an institutional (university) level. Joint Projects aim at transferring knowledge between universities, organisations and institutions from the EU and from the partner countries as well as between partner country entities as appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

Joint Projects: projects with a ‘bottom-up’ approach aiming at modernisation and reform on an institutional (university) level. Joint Projects aim at transferring knowledge between universities, organisations and institutions from the EU and from the partner countries as well as between partner country entities as appropriate.

| — | Structural Measures: projects seeking to contribute to the development and reform of higher education systems in partner countries, as well as to enhance their quality and relevance and to increase their voluntary convergence with EU developments. Structural Measures will be interventions designed to support structural reform of higher education systems and the strategic framework development at national level. |
| --- | --- |

—

Structural Measures: projects seeking to contribute to the development and reform of higher education systems in partner countries, as well as to enhance their quality and relevance and to increase their voluntary convergence with EU developments. Structural Measures will be interventions designed to support structural reform of higher education systems and the strategic framework development at national level.

Under this call, national and multi-country projects can be financed:

National projects must adhere to national priorities which are established in close dialogue between EU Delegations and the relevant authorities in the partner countries.

| — | For national projects, proposals must be submitted by groupings of institutions involving:






  — | at least three higher education institutions from a partner country (in the case of Montenegro and Kosovo, due to the small size of the higher education sector, one university will be sufficient), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

For national projects, proposals must be submitted by groupings of institutions involving:

—

at least three higher education institutions from a partner country (in the case of Montenegro and Kosovo, due to the small size of the higher education sector, one university will be sufficient),

| — | at least three higher education institutions from the EU, each from a different EU Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

at least three higher education institutions from the EU, each from a different EU Member State.

Multi-country projects must comply with regional priorities which are based on the EU's policy for cooperation with the partner countries’ regions as identified in its strategic documents concerning the neighbouring countries (3), those for pre-accession to the EU (4) and those in Central Asia (5). They are common to all partner countries within a specific region or they address a national priority which is common to each of the participating partner countries.

| — | For multi-country projects, proposals must be submitted by groupings of institutions involving:






  — | at least two higher education institutions from each of the participating partner countries (minimum two partner countries) involved in the proposal (with the exception of Kosovo and Montenegro where the requirement is one higher education institution from each), |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

For multi-country projects, proposals must be submitted by groupings of institutions involving:

—

at least two higher education institutions from each of the participating partner countries (minimum two partner countries) involved in the proposal (with the exception of Kosovo and Montenegro where the requirement is one higher education institution from each),

| — | at least three higher education institutions, each from a different EU Member State. |
| --- | --- |

—

at least three higher education institutions, each from a different EU Member State.

For Structural Measures, there is an additional condition: the ministry/ies responsible for higher education in the partner country/ies must be involved as partner/s in a Structural Measures project.

The maximum duration of projects is 24 months or 36 months. The period of eligibility of costs is expected to start on 1 December 2013.

4.   Award criteria

Eligible applications for Joint Projects and Structural Measures will be assessed by external independent experts according to the following award criteria:

| — | the clarity of the project objectives and their relevance with regard to the higher education priorities and labour market needs of each partner country, including synergy with any other initiatives and avoidance of duplication; the needs and constraints of each beneficiary institution; the participation of new higher education institutions; the impact of the project on the reform and modernisation of higher education systems in the partner country (maximum score of 25 points), |
| --- | --- |

—

the clarity of the project objectives and their relevance with regard to the higher education priorities and labour market needs of each partner country, including synergy with any other initiatives and avoidance of duplication; the needs and constraints of each beneficiary institution; the participation of new higher education institutions; the impact of the project on the reform and modernisation of higher education systems in the partner country (maximum score of 25 points),

| — | the quality of the partnership: skills, recognised expertise and competences required to carry out all aspects of the work programme, suitable distribution of tasks, effective communication and cooperation (maximum score of 20 points), |
| --- | --- |

—

the quality of the partnership: skills, recognised expertise and competences required to carry out all aspects of the work programme, suitable distribution of tasks, effective communication and cooperation (maximum score of 20 points),

| — | the quality of the project’s contents and applied methodology including, amongst others, appropriateness of project outcomes and related activities in consistency with the project aim and specific objectives, demonstrated logical and sound planning capacity (logical framework matrix and work plan), anticipated quality control, monitoring and management of the project (indicators and benchmarks) (maximum score of 25 points), |
| --- | --- |

—

the quality of the project’s contents and applied methodology including, amongst others, appropriateness of project outcomes and related activities in consistency with the project aim and specific objectives, demonstrated logical and sound planning capacity (logical framework matrix and work plan), anticipated quality control, monitoring and management of the project (indicators and benchmarks) (maximum score of 25 points),

| — | the sustainability or lasting impact of the project on the institutions, target groups and/or higher education system, including dissemination and exploitation of activities and project results (maximum score of 15 points), |
| --- | --- |

—

the sustainability or lasting impact of the project on the institutions, target groups and/or higher education system, including dissemination and exploitation of activities and project results (maximum score of 15 points),

| — | the budget and cost-effectiveness, including staff planning respecting the daily salary rates, appropriate equipment purchase, efficient use of mobility periods, fair distribution of the budget, feasibility of the action with the defined budget (maximum score of 15 points). |
| --- | --- |

—

the budget and cost-effectiveness, including staff planning respecting the daily salary rates, appropriate equipment purchase, efficient use of mobility periods, fair distribution of the budget, feasibility of the action with the defined budget (maximum score of 15 points).

5.   Budget

The total budget available for the co-financing of projects is estimated at EUR 129,8 million (6).

The financial contribution from the European Union cannot exceed 90 % of the total eligible costs. A co-financing of a minimum of 10 % of the total eligible costs is needed.

The minimum grant for both Joint Projects and Structural Measures will be EUR 500 000. The maximum grant will amount to EUR 1 500 000. For national projects in Kosovo and Montenegro, the minimum grant for both project types is set at EUR 300 000.

The Agency reserves the right not to distribute all the funds available.

6.   Deadline for submission of applications

Applications for Joint Projects and Structural Measures must be submitted to the Executive Agency (EACEA) no later than 26 March 2013, 12.00 (Brussels time).

Only electronic applications drawn up in English, French or German, submitted on the official application form, duly signed by the person entitled to enter into legally binding commitments on behalf of the applicant organisation and containing all the information and annexes specified in the full text of the call will be accepted.

This online submission is the master copy. Additional legal and administrative documents (see Application Guidelines) must be sent by post to the Agency by 26 March 2013 (date of postmark) to the following address:

| Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency |
| --- |
| Tempus & Bilateral Cooperation with Industrialised Countries |
| Call for proposals EACEA/35/12 |
| Office: BOUR 2/17 |
| Avenue du Bourget/Bourgetlaan 1 |
| 1140 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Tempus & Bilateral Cooperation with Industrialised Countries

Call for proposals EACEA/35/12

Office: BOUR 2/17

Avenue du Bourget/Bourgetlaan 1

1140 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Applications sent by fax or e-mail will not be accepted.

7.   Full details

The guidelines together with the application forms can be found at the following Internet address:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/tempus

Applications must comply with all the terms of the guidelines and be submitted on the forms provided.

---

(1)  Croatia is expected to become a Member State of the European Union on 1 July 2013. The participation of Croatia in the present call for proposals is subject to the entry into force of the Accession Treaty by the date of the award decision.

(2)  This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument: http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/oj_l310_en.pdf

(4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_210/l_21020060731en00820093.pdf

(5)  Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:378:0041:0071:EN:PDF

(6)  An additional budget of EUR 11,11 million for the Western Balkans area might become available following the adoption of the relevant Commission's decision. Another amount of EUR 5 million for Tunisia might become available following the adoption of the relevant Commission’s decision. The availability of these amounts will be announced on the Tempus programme website.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/17

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2012/C 375/08

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2).

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Silico-manganese
  (including ferro-silico-manganese) | People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 (OJ L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5) | 6.12.2012 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Silico-manganese

(including ferro-silico-manganese)

People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 (OJ L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5)

6.12.2012

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 24.4.2012, p. 8.

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 5.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 375/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 375/18

---

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

2012/C 375/09

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘CEBOLLA FUENTES DE EBRO’

EC No: ES-PDO-0005-0817-08.07.2010

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Name:

‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’

2.   Member State or third country:

Spain

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff:

3.1.   Type of product:

| Class 1.6. | Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.6.

Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

3.2.   Description of product to which the name in point 1 applies:

‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ is understood to mean the bulbs of the species Allium cepa L. from the ‘Cebolla Dulce de Fuentes’ and ‘Cebolla Blanca Gruesa de Fuentes’ varieties of the native population traditionally from Fuentes de Ebro, as included in the common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species.

Depending upon the phenologic condition at the time of harvest, the commercial types covered by this protected designation of origin shall be:

| I. | mature onions which are harvested when the bulb is mature, and at stage 9 in accordance with the phenologic scale for onions described by Suso et al. (1992); |
| --- | --- |

I.

mature onions which are harvested when the bulb is mature, and at stage 9 in accordance with the phenologic scale for onions described by Suso et al. (1992);

| II. | early onions which are harvested in the full vegetation period during which the bulb is formed, and at stage 7 of the thickening of the bulb in accordance with the scale proposed by Suso et al. (1992) (ITEA, v. 88(1), pp. 46-62). |
| --- | --- |

II.

early onions which are harvested in the full vegetation period during which the bulb is formed, and at stage 7 of the thickening of the bulb in accordance with the scale proposed by Suso et al. (1992) (ITEA, v. 88(1), pp. 46-62).

Specificity of the product

| — | Colour of the outer skins: straw-white. The early onion is greenish-white in colour. |
| --- | --- |

—

Colour of the outer skins: straw-white. The early onion is greenish-white in colour.

| — | Internal colour: white, |
| --- | --- |

—

Internal colour: white,

| — | Organoleptic characteristics: mild flavour, low piquancy, internal layers very tender and succulent and once swallowed it does not leave an aftertaste in the mouth. |
| --- | --- |

—

Organoleptic characteristics: mild flavour, low piquancy, internal layers very tender and succulent and once swallowed it does not leave an aftertaste in the mouth.

The mature and early onions are displayed in the following ways:

| — | whole, |
| --- | --- |

—

whole,

| — | peeled: without their outermost layers. |
| --- | --- |

—

peeled: without their outermost layers.

The ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ is an agro-food product native to Aragon which is rated very positively by the consumer for its very satisfying taste which is essentially due to its succulence and low piquancy, and it does not leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth, which is what distinguishes it from the other varieties of onions.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only):

—

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only):

—

3.5.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the identified geographical area:

| — | Cultivation and harvesting. |
| --- | --- |

—

Cultivation and harvesting.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.:

The proper preparation and storage of the onions until they are sent to the market has a significant bearing on the final quality of the product. This is notably the case of the ‘Dulce de Fuentes’ variety that is characterised by a high water content, which makes it particularly succulent, but more likely to perish during handling and transportation, as pointed out in the book Variedades autóctonas de cebollas españolas, by Miguel Carravedo and Cristina Mallor IBSN 84-8380-0006-5 and the article by Cristina Mallor in the magazine Horticultura No 205 of March 2008.

It is local sellers in the region who have the necessary experience in handling this type of onion during bulb transportation, processing, packaging and later storage, in accordance with the age-old tradition of growing this crop in the area in question. Traditionally, in the first third of the 20th century, the forefathers of today’s current sellers grew the onions and subsequently prepared them for market in the form of plaits or strings, which they had made themselves by plaiting the stalks, before transporting them by cart to their destination. From the 1940s onwards, onions were taken by rail or road to be sold in markets that were further away from the production area, a process started by several of the businesses in the PDO applicant group. From 1980, this accumulated experience in onion handling led these businesses to set up the first installations to store, handle and package onions.

Therefore, the packaging of the product must be carried out in the geographical area defined by the PDO because, as previously explained, this onion perishes very easily and its transport could damage its quality. This also ensures that its origin and traceability are safeguarded throughout the entire process until it reaches its destination and minimises the handling stages that can result in a loss of quality in the onions protected by the PDO.

The packer must use processes enabling the PDO onions to be packaged separately from any other onions.

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling:

In addition to meeting the rules on labelling under current legislation, each package or container must carry the following information:

| — | the PDO logo, including the designation ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’, |
| --- | --- |

—

the PDO logo, including the designation ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’,

| — | the name or company name of the packager/forwarder, |
| --- | --- |

—

the name or company name of the packager/forwarder,

| — | the batch number, |
| --- | --- |

—

the batch number,

| — | the words ‘early’ or ‘peeled’, where appropriate, |
| --- | --- |

—

the words ‘early’ or ‘peeled’, where appropriate,

| — | a numbered secondary label. |
| --- | --- |

—

a numbered secondary label.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area:

The geographical area for the onions covered by the protected designation of origin ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ covers land located in the following municipalities of the province of Zaragoza: Fuentes de Ebro, Mediana de Aragón, Osera de Ebro, Pina de Ebro, Quinto and Villafranca de Ebro.

5.   Link with the geographical area:

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area:

The area in which the ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ is cultivated is located in the central valley of the Ebro, which has a well-defined continental Mediterranean climate. It is known as the ‘Tertiary Depression of the Ebro’ and its soil has a marked fluvial character and an abundance of gypsum and calcium carbonate.

The climatic characteristics of this area are aridity, together with a continental climate and wind. The aridity is reflected in pluviometric measurements, an annual rainfall of approximately 350 mm distributed across the seasons with a maximum at the equinoxes and a minimum at the solstices which, together with raised temperatures, is evidence of the existence of a prolonged period of water stress (from June to October).

The continental climate gives rise to strong contrasts between the summer heat and the winter lows. The average annual isotherm is between 13 °C and 15 °C. With regard to minimum temperatures, it can be seen that in certain periods temperatures can fall to 5 °C, with the most extreme values in December and January. The maximum averages in the summer are above 30 °C, and the hottest months are June, July and August, during which absolute maximum temperatures in the region of 40 °C can be registered.

In terms of wind, the effect of the ‘Cierzo’ on the cultivation area should be noted. The ‘Cierzo’ is a very cold and dry strong wind which originates in the Ebro Valley and is created by the difference in pressure between the Cantabrian and Mediterranean seas, when there is an area of low pressure over the latter and an area of high pressure in the former.

To summarise, this area is characterised by a fertile soil which has an abundance of gypsum and calcium carbonate and a raised pH, and a microclimate which is steppic, windy and lacking in rain.

5.2.   Specificity of the product:

‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ stands out from the other vegetables grown in the region on account of its special characteristics. It has a coarse stem, an external straw-white colour and its internal layers are white and spongy. However, this onion is chiefly characterised by its low piquancy. People say of it that ‘it is not strong and has a slightly sweet flavour’.

From a nutritional point of view, the most healthy way to eat this vegetable is raw, and the best onion for this is the ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ because it does not have the same disadvantages as other onions, such as their piquancy and lasting taste up to several hours after consumption, which is a decisive factor in many consumers deciding not to include raw onion in their diet.

The reputation of this onion has been spreading throughout Spain as an alternative to more piquant onions, its pleasant texture and refreshing taste have also been discovered. In fact, the three most valued characteristics of the ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ for the consumer are: its low piquancy, its succulence in a salad and its Aragon roots, according to the survey carried out by the Centro de Tecnología Agroalimentaria del Gobierno de Aragón and published in the technical review Surcos de Aragón No 66 (2000).

These aspects differentiate this onion from the other varieties of onion and that is why it is mainly eaten raw.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI):

The characteristics of the soil, the aridity of a dry and windy climate and the age-old irrigation opportunities in the production area, together with the cultivation practices and the vegetable material used for the production of the ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ are key to obtaining the low levels of piquancy of this type of onion, and this is the principal characteristic of the product which differentiates it from other onions.

The genetic material from this onion has been used to grow the crop outside the edaphic-climatic scope of the cultivation area indicated here, and it was observed that the onions lose their size and texture and, in particular, the piquancy which characterises them increases (Informaciones Técnicas Nos 110 and 127 published by the Dirreción General de Tecnología del Gobierno de Aragón in the years 2002 and 2003 respectively).

The most relevant aspects which explain this causal relationship between the area and the product obtained, especially in respect of its piquancy, are, on the one hand, the extremely arid climate which causes water stress at very specific points in the cultivation cycle, despite the ability to irrigate using water from the River Ebro, and, on the other hand, the special edaphic configuration of the area in question, which is a mix of soils developed on quaternary materials from the fluvial dynamic of the Ebro, and soils with high gypsum and calcium carbonate contents which are the characteristics of the central part of the Ebro Depression. The mixture and development of these materials throughout the centuries by the alluvial and colluvial dynamic led to an amalgamation of soils in which this vegetable is grown, with USDA textures including loam, sandy loam and silty loam, raised gypsum and calcium carbonate contents, a slightly alkaline pH and low levels of organic materials distributed at all soil depths. All this confirms specific fertility qualities which are characterised by the abundance of certain macronutrients and micronutrients, whose availability for the plant remains conditioned by raised pH levels, all of which contributes to obtaining a low piquancy as a distinguishing feature of the final product.

Reference to the publication of the specification:

http://www.aragon.es/estaticos/GobiernoAragon/Departamentos/AgriculturaGanaderiaMedioAmbiente/AgriculturaGanaderia/Areas/08_Calidad_Agroalimentaria/02_Alimentos_calidad_diferenciada/-CebollaFuentesdeEbro.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---