# Official Journal C 149/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 149 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4927 June 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 149

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4927 June 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 149/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 149/2 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 134th meeting on 9 August 2005 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.3687 — Johnson&Johnson/Guidant | 2 |
| 2006/C 149/3 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.3687 — Johnson&Johnson/Guidant (pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) | 4 |
| 2006/C 149/4 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 394th meeting on 12 september 2005 concerning a preliminary draft decision in cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275 — SEP and others/Automobiles Peugeot SA | 5 |
| 2006/C 149/5 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 395th meeting on 3 October 2005 concerning a draft decision in cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275 — SEP and others/Automobiles Peugeot SA | 6 |
| 2006/C 149/6 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in cases COMP/F2-36.623, COMP/F2-36.820 and COMP/F2-37.275 — Peugeot SA (pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) | 7 |
| 2006/C 149/7 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4272 — Fortress/telent) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2006/C 149/8 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4275 — Charterhouse/Fives-Lille) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2006/C 149/9 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4262 — Carlyle/Vista/Turmed) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| 2006/C 149/0 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4214 — Alcatel/Lucent Technologies) (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2006/C 149/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4194 — Crédit Agricole/TV-ESS) (
  1
  ) | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 149/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 149/2

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 134th meeting on 9 August 2005 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.3687 — Johnson&Johnson/Guidant

2

2006/C 149/3

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.3687 — Johnson&Johnson/Guidant (pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

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

4

2006/C 149/4

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 394th meeting on 12 september 2005 concerning a preliminary draft decision in cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275 — SEP and others/Automobiles Peugeot SA

5

2006/C 149/5

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 395th meeting on 3 October 2005 concerning a draft decision in cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275 — SEP and others/Automobiles Peugeot SA

6

2006/C 149/6

Final report of the Hearing Officer in cases COMP/F2-36.623, COMP/F2-36.820 and COMP/F2-37.275 — Peugeot SA (pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

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

7

2006/C 149/7

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4272 — Fortress/telent) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

2006/C 149/8

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4275 — Charterhouse/Fives-Lille) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

10

2006/C 149/9

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4262 — Carlyle/Vista/Turmed) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

11

2006/C 149/0

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4214 — Alcatel/Lucent Technologies) (
  1
  )

1

12

2006/C 149/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4194 — Crédit Agricole/TV-ESS) (
  1
  )

1

13

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 149/2 | Directorate-General for Education and Culture — Call for proposals — DG EAC/22/06 — Under the second phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme — Award of grants for actions to develop and test the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), including national and sectoral qualifications frameworks | 14 |

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 149/2

Directorate-General for Education and Culture — Call for proposals — DG EAC/22/06 — Under the second phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme — Award of grants for actions to develop and test the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), including national and sectoral qualifications frameworks

14

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

26 June 2006

(2006/C 149/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2561 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 146,13 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4562 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69010 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2182 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5632 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 95,05 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9285 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,528 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0875 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6335 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,65 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,223 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0805 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7157 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4056 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7559 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0775 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0070 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 205,23 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,2681 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0536 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2578 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 807,34 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,632 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,076 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,0020 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,320 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2561

JPY

Japanese yen

146,13

DKK

Danish krone

7,4562

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69010

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2182

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5632

ISK

Iceland króna

95,05

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9285

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,528

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0875

RON

Romanian leu

3,6335

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,65

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,223

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0805

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7157

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4056

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7559

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0775

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0070

KRW

South Korean won

1 205,23

ZAR

South African rand

9,2681

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0536

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2578

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 807,34

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,632

PHP

Philippine peso

67,076

RUB

Russian rouble

34,0020

THB

Thai baht

48,320

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 134th meeting on 9 August 2005 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.3687 — Johnson&Johnson/Guidant

(2006/C 149/02)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 1(3) and Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation and that it has a Community dimension as defined by that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 1(3) and Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation and that it has a Community dimension as defined by that Regulation.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant product markets are
  In interventional cardiology (IC) devices:






  (a) | Drug-eluting stents (DES), |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

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

In interventional cardiology (IC) devices:

(a)

Drug-eluting stents (DES),

| (b) | Bare metal stents (BMS), |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Bare metal stents (BMS),

| (c) | Coronary guiding catheters, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Coronary guiding catheters,

| (d) | Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) balloon catheters, |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) balloon catheters,

| (e) | Steerable guidewires (SGW). |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Steerable guidewires (SGW).

In endovascular devices:

| (f) | Endovascular guiding catheters, |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Endovascular guiding catheters,

| (g) | Steerable guidewires (SGW), |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Steerable guidewires (SGW),

| (h) | Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloon catheters, |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloon catheters,

| (i) | Embolic protection devices (EPD), |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Embolic protection devices (EPD),

| (j) | Balloon expandable stents (BX), |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Balloon expandable stents (BX),

| (k) | Self expandable carotid stents (SX carotid stents), |
| --- | --- |

(k)

Self expandable carotid stents (SX carotid stents),

| (l) | Self expandable non-carotid stents (SX non-carotid stents). |
| --- | --- |

(l)

Self expandable non-carotid stents (SX non-carotid stents).

In cardiac surgery devices:

| (m) | Beating-heart surgery systems, |
| --- | --- |

(m)

Beating-heart surgery systems,

| (n) | Blowers and misters, |
| --- | --- |

(n)

Blowers and misters,

| (o) | Endoscopic vessel harvesting systems (EVH). |
| --- | --- |

(o)

Endoscopic vessel harvesting systems (EVH).

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the relevant geographic markets are national for all of the above mentioned product markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

| 4. | A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it (within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Merger Regulation) and the EEA for the following markets
  In interventional cardiology (IC) devices:






  (a) | Drug-eluting stents (DES), |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it (within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Merger Regulation) and the EEA for the following markets

In interventional cardiology (IC) devices:

(a)

Drug-eluting stents (DES),

| (b) | Bare metal stents (BMS), |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Bare metal stents (BMS),

| (c) | Coronary guiding catheters, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Coronary guiding catheters,

| (d) | Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) balloon catheters. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) balloon catheters.

In endovascular devices:

| (e) | Endovascular guiding catheters, |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Endovascular guiding catheters,

| (f) | Steerable guidewires (SGW), |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Steerable guidewires (SGW),

| (g) | Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloon catheters, |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloon catheters,

| (h) | Embolic protection devices (EPD). |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Embolic protection devices (EPD).

In cardiac surgery devices:

| (i) | Beating-heart surgery systems, |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Beating-heart surgery systems,

| (j) | Blowers and misters. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Blowers and misters.

A minority of the Advisory Committee disagrees.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration is likely to result in a significant impediment to effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA
  In interventional cardiology (IC) devices:






  (a) | as a result of the strengthening of Guidant's dominant postition in the market for steerable guidewires (SGW). |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

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

In interventional cardiology (IC) devices:

(a)

as a result of the strengthening of Guidant's dominant postition in the market for steerable guidewires (SGW).

In endovascular devices:

| (b) | in particular as a result of the creation of a dominant position in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain for balloon expandable stents (BX); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in particular as a result of the creation of a dominant position in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain for balloon expandable stents (BX);

| (c) | in particular as a result of the creation of a dominant position, as the proposed concentration will give rise to non-coordinated adverse effects in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain for self expandable carotid stents (SX carotid stents); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

in particular as a result of the creation of a dominant position, as the proposed concentration will give rise to non-coordinated adverse effects in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain for self expandable carotid stents (SX carotid stents);

| (d) | in particular as a result of the creation or the strengthening of a dominant position, as the proposed concentration will give rise to non-coordinated adverse effects in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands for self expandable non-carotid stents (SX non-carotid stents). |
| --- | --- |

(d)

in particular as a result of the creation or the strengthening of a dominant position, as the proposed concentration will give rise to non-coordinated adverse effects in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands for self expandable non-carotid stents (SX non-carotid stents).

In cardiac surgery devices:

| (e) | as the concentration will give rise to a dominant position in the market for Endoscopic vessel harvesting systems (EVH). |
| --- | --- |

(e)

as the concentration will give rise to a dominant position in the market for Endoscopic vessel harvesting systems (EVH).

| 6. | A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments are sufficient to remove the significant impediments to competition on the markets for:






  (a) | Coronary steerable guidewires (SGW), |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments are sufficient to remove the significant impediments to competition on the markets for:

(a)

Coronary steerable guidewires (SGW),

| (b) | Balloon expandable stents (BX), |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Balloon expandable stents (BX),

| (c) | Self expandable carotid stents (SX carotid stents), |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Self expandable carotid stents (SX carotid stents),

| (d) | Self expandable non-carotid stents (SX non-carotid stents), |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Self expandable non-carotid stents (SX non-carotid stents),

| (e) | Endoscopic vessel harvesting systems (EVH). |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Endoscopic vessel harvesting systems (EVH).

A minority of the Advisory Committee disagrees.

| 7. | A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to full compliance with the undertakings offered by the parties, the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Merger Regulation and that the proposed concentration is therefore to be declared compatible with Article 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
  A minority of the Advisory Committee disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

7.

A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to full compliance with the undertakings offered by the parties, the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Merger Regulation and that the proposed concentration is therefore to be declared compatible with Article 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

A minority of the Advisory Committee disagrees.

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

8.

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

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/4

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.3687 — Johnson&Johnson/Guidant

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

(2006/C 149/03)

On 15 March 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Johnson & Johnson, USA (‘J&J’) acquires control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Guidant Corporation, USA(‘Guidant’) by way of purchase of shares

At the end of the first phase of the investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. On 22 April 2005, the Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

A statement of objections was sent to J&J on 20 June 2005. The following day, access to the Commission's file was granted. J&J was asked to reply by 27 June 2005. This deadline was complied with.

The parties did not request the opportunity to develop their arguments in a formal oral hearing.

Edwards Lifesciences SA, Sorin SpA, Abott Laboratories and Medtronic Inc were admitted as interested third parties according to Article 18(4) of the Merger Regulation. They were informed of the nature and subject matter of the case, as appropriate.

On 13 July 2005, J&J offered commitments in order to resolve the competition concerns identified in the Statement of Objections. A market test of the commitments was carried out. I have not been asked to verify the objectivity of the market enquiry. The parties did not request further access to the Commission's file, in particular the results of the market test.

In the light of the commitments proposed and having analysed the results of the market test, the draft decision concludes that the proposed concentration is compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement.

I consider that the rights to be heard of all participants to the present proceeding have been respected.

Brussels, 10 August 2005.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 394th meeting on 12 september 2005 concerning a preliminary draft decision in cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275 — SEP and others/Automobiles Peugeot SA

(2006/C 149/04)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion on the relevant market. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion on the relevant market.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have concluded agreements on the measures at issue within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have concluded agreements on the measures at issue within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, as regards the dealer remuneration system put in place in the Netherlands by the addressees of the draft decision, the object and effect of the agreements at issue were to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, as regards the dealer remuneration system put in place in the Netherlands by the addressees of the draft decision, the object and effect of the agreements at issue were to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, as to pressures exercised by the addressees of the draft decision on Peugeot Dutch dealers, the object and effect of the agreements at issue were to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, as to pressures exercised by the addressees of the draft decision on Peugeot Dutch dealers, the object and effect of the agreements at issue were to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements at issue have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements at issue have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States of the EU.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the exemption provided by Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 is not applicable to the agreements at issue. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the exemption provided by Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 is not applicable to the agreements at issue.

| 7. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the gravity of the infringement and a minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the gravity of the infringement and a minority abstains.

| 8 | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

8

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringement.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable.

| 10 | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating circumstances applicable. |
| --- | --- |

10

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating circumstances applicable.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

11.

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

| 12. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

12.

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

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 395th meeting on 3 October 2005 concerning a draft decision in cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275 — SEP and others/Automobiles Peugeot SA

(2006/C 149/05)

| 1. | A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine determined according to the gravity and duration of the infringement in the present case. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine determined according to the gravity and duration of the infringement in the present case. A minority abstains.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the absence of reduction or increase of the basic amount due to the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the absence of reduction or increase of the basic amount due to the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the present case.

| 3. | A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine in the present case. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine in the present case. A minority abstains.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/7

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in cases COMP/F2-36.623, COMP/F2-36.820 and COMP/F2-37.275 — Peugeot SA

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

(2006/C 149/06)

The draft decision in the abovementioned case gives rise to the following observations on the parties' right to be heard.

The case arose out of a number of complaints received from car brokers and final consumers according to which Peugeot SA had implemented measures aimed at restricting exports of Peugeot vehicles in the Netherlands and Germany.

On 30 April 2004, the Commission sent a statement of objections to Automobiles Peugeot SA (‘AP’) in France, Peugeot Deutschland GmbH (‘PDG’) in Germany and Peugeot Nederland BV (‘PNE’) in the Netherlands in which it was provisionally established that the group had adopted ‘a general strategy aimed at restricting cross-border sales of cars to final consumers and hence at limiting intra-brand competition between members of its distribution network located in different Member States’.

With regard to Germany, the Commission voiced four objections concerning: ‘components of the remuneration of dealers belonging to the network, certain promotional activities, a restriction of supplies to members of the network and pressure on dealers to implement the restrictions on exports’.

With regard to the Netherlands, the Commission voiced four objections of a similar nature to those concerning Germany, namely: ‘(i) a restrictive policy in relation to dealer remuneration, (ii) a restrictive policy on the occasion of several promotional campaigns, (iii) a policy of limiting supplies to dealers and (iv) direct warnings and instructions to several dealers to implement the strategy of restricting exports’.

The parties were given access to the file on the Commission's premises on 11 and 12 May 2004.

Following a reasoned request from the parties, the original time limit for replying to the statement of objections was extended until 30 July 2004.

The parties waived their right to be heard at a formal oral hearing.

After receiving Peugeot's reply to the statement of objections, the Commission conducted further enquiries. In the light of the additional information gathered, the Commission reconsidered its position on the objections relating to Germany, which were withdrawn.

As regards the Netherlands, the draft final decision maintains the objections originally levelled at the restrictive policy on dealer remuneration and the pressure exerted on dealers.

In the interests of transparency and in order to give full access to the Commission's file, a letter setting out the facts, complete with annexes, was sent to the parties on 26 May 2005. The arguments and considerations set out in the letter did not constitute new objections but were intended to enable the parties to make all comments which could be useful to their defence, bearing in mind the objections previously made.

The parties submitted their comments on 27 June 2005.

During the course of the procedure, the parties raised a number of questions about access to the file, sending a letter on the subject to the Hearing Officer in April 2003.

Peugeot took the view that the procedural guarantees were not respected during the inspections conducted by the Commission in April 2003. Two documents setting out the results of a legal audit requested by Peugeot of its lawyers following the inspections on 22 and 23 September 1999 and marked ‘strictly confidential’ were seized. Peugeot asked that they be returned, which was duly done on 14 April 2003 at a meeting at DG Competition. The document return form explicitly states that the documents in question had indeed been drawn up in connection with the company's defence and that for this reason they are covered by the privilege accorded to correspondence between a lawyer and his client. On 28 April 2003, the Hearing Officer in charge of the file at the time took the view that the procedure followed, which culminated in a letter from the relevant service in the Commission giving an assurance that no copy had been kept and that no use would ultimately be made of the documents in evidence against the company, respected the rights of the defence. He also confirmed that the Commission officials had confined themselves to a minimal and necessary check of the documents at issue.

In the light of the above, I consider that the right of the parties to be heard has been respected in this case. In my opinion, the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

Brussels, 21 September 2005.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4272 — Fortress/telent)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 149/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 15 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Fortress Investment Group LLC (‘Fortress’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking telent plc (‘telent’, UK) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 15 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Fortress Investment Group LLC (‘Fortress’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking telent plc (‘telent’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Fortress: private investment management company, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Fortress: private investment management company,

| — | for telent: communications support services to telecommunications operators, large enterprises and public sector agencies. |
| --- | --- |

—

for telent: communications support services to telecommunications operators, large enterprises and public sector agencies.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4272 — Fortress/telent, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4272 — Fortress/telent, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

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

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/10

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4275 — Charterhouse/Fives-Lille)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 149/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 15 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking CharterHouse Limited (‘Charterhouse’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Financières F.L (‘FFL’, France) the ultimate parent company of the Fives-Lille Group (‘Fives-Lille’, France), by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 15 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking CharterHouse Limited (‘Charterhouse’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Financières F.L (‘FFL’, France) the ultimate parent company of the Fives-Lille Group (‘Fives-Lille’, France), by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Charterhouse: provider of equity funds and fund management services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Charterhouse: provider of equity funds and fund management services,

| — | for Fives-Lille: industrial engineering group. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Fives-Lille: industrial engineering group.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4275 — Charterhouse/Fives-Lille, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4275 — Charterhouse/Fives-Lille, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

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

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/11

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4262 — Carlyle/Vista/Turmed)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 149/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 21 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which The Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, USA) — through its fund CEP II — and Vista Desarrollo S.A., S.C.R. (‘Vista’, Spain), a fully owned subsidiary of Banco Santander Central Hispano S.A. (‘Banco Santander’, Spain), will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control over Turmed, S.L.U. (‘Turmed’, Spain), which is currently controlled by the Spanish tourism group Iberostar, via purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which The Carlyle Group (‘Carlyle’, USA) — through its fund CEP II — and Vista Desarrollo S.A., S.C.R. (‘Vista’, Spain), a fully owned subsidiary of Banco Santander Central Hispano S.A. (‘Banco Santander’, Spain), will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control over Turmed, S.L.U. (‘Turmed’, Spain), which is currently controlled by the Spanish tourism group Iberostar, via purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Carlyle: a global private equity investment group holding a portfolio of companies active in the aerospace and defence, automotive and transportation, retail, energy, healthcare, industrial, technology and business services, telecommunications and media businesses, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Carlyle: a global private equity investment group holding a portfolio of companies active in the aerospace and defence, automotive and transportation, retail, energy, healthcare, industrial, technology and business services, telecommunications and media businesses,

| — | for Vista: a private equity fund, taking temporary stakes in the capital of non-financial firms, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Vista: a private equity fund, taking temporary stakes in the capital of non-financial firms,

| — | for Banco Santander: active in the financial sector, mainly in the retail banking business, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Banco Santander: active in the financial sector, mainly in the retail banking business,

| — | for Turmed: active in the tourism sector, mainly as tour operator, travel agency and provider of airline services as well as cruise operations. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Turmed: active in the tourism sector, mainly as tour operator, travel agency and provider of airline services as well as cruise operations.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4262 — Carlyle/Vista/Turmed, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4262 — Carlyle/Vista/Turmed, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

(2)  OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32; Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4214 — Alcatel/Lucent Technologies)

(2006/C 149/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 16 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Alcatel (‘Alcatel’, France) and Lucent Technologies (‘Lucent’, USA) enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Council Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 16 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Alcatel (‘Alcatel’, France) and Lucent Technologies (‘Lucent’, USA) enter into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Council Regulation.

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






  — | for Alcatel: design, development and building of communications networks; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Alcatel: design, development and building of communications networks;

| — | for Lucent: design, delivery and maintenance of a wide range of systems, software and services for communications networks. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Lucent: design, delivery and maintenance of a wide range of systems, software and services for communications networks.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4214 — Alcatel/Lucent Technologies, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4214 — Alcatel/Lucent Technologies, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

---

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4194 — Crédit Agricole/TV-ESS)

(2006/C 149/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 16 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4194. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4194. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---

III Notices

Commission

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/14

---

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EDUCATION AND CULTURE

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC/22/06

Under the second phase of the Leonardo da Vinci programme

Award of grants for actions to develop and test the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), including national and sectoral qualifications frameworks

(2006/C 149/12)

1.   Objectives and description

The objective of this call for proposals is to award grants to approximately ten proposals, with participants from the maximum number of countries, to organise actions to support partnerships:

| — | to develop and test the principles and mechanisms of the future EQF, |
| --- | --- |

—

to develop and test the principles and mechanisms of the future EQF,

| — | to exchange experiences in developing national and sectoral frameworks, and test the principles and mechanisms of such frameworks, using the EQF as a common reference point. |
| --- | --- |

—

to exchange experiences in developing national and sectoral frameworks, and test the principles and mechanisms of such frameworks, using the EQF as a common reference point.

2.   Eligible applicants

The submission of applications for grants under this call is open especially to partnerships of European, national, regional and sectoral organisations, including, for example, ministries, qualifications authorities, sectoral associations, social partners and other key stakeholders with an interest and role in qualifications systems. Applications for funding may only be made by partnerships consisting of organisations drawn from five or more countries.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 25 countries of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 25 countries of the European Union,

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

—

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

| — | the candidate countries: Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey. |
| --- | --- |

—

the candidate countries: Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey.

3.   Budget and project duration

The total budget earmarked for the cofinancing of projects amounts to EUR 1 million. Financial assistance from the Commission cannot exceed 75 % of the total eligible costs.

Grants are expected to be between EUR 50 000 and EUR 125 000.

Activities must start not later than 1 January 2007. The maximum duration of projects is 24 months.

4.   Deadline

Applications must be despatched, date as postmark, to the Commission no later than 18 August 2006.

5.   Further information

The full text of the call for proposals and the application forms are available on the following website:

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/calls/2206/index_en.html

Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the full text and be submitted using the form provided.

---