# Official Journal C 392/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 392 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5825 November 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 392

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5825 November 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 392/01 | Communication from the Commission — Corresponding values of the thresholds of Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council | 1 |
| 2015/C 392/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7682 — Goldman Sachs/Altor/Hamlet) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2015/C 392/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7808 — Bain Capital Investors/Autodistribution Group) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 392/01

Communication from the Commission — Corresponding values of the thresholds of Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council

1

2015/C 392/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7682 — Goldman Sachs/Altor/Hamlet) (
  1
  )

1

4

2015/C 392/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7808 — Bain Capital Investors/Autodistribution Group) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 392/04 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |
| 2015/C 392/05 | Withdrawal of Commission proposals | 6 |
| 2015/C 392/06 | Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2015/C 392/07 | Notice to importers — Imports of tuna products from Thailand into the European Union | 8 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2015/C 392/08 | Executive summary of Opinion No 4/2015 of the European Data Protection Supervisor, Towards a new digital ethics: Data, dignity and technology | 9 |
| 2015/C 392/09 | Executive Summary of the second Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime | 11 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 392/04

Euro exchange rates

5

2015/C 392/05

Withdrawal of Commission proposals

6

2015/C 392/06

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
   (
  1
  )

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)

1

7

2015/C 392/07

Notice to importers — Imports of tuna products from Thailand into the European Union

8

European Data Protection Supervisor

2015/C 392/08

Executive summary of Opinion No 4/2015 of the European Data Protection Supervisor, Towards a new digital ethics: Data, dignity and technology

9

2015/C 392/09

Executive Summary of the second Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime

11

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 392/10 | Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand | 14 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 392/11 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer/Top-Team Zentraleinkauf) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 18 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 392/10

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand

14

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 392/11

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer/Top-Team Zentraleinkauf) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

18

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/1

---

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Corresponding values of the thresholds of Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council

(2015/C 392/01)

The corresponding values in the national currencies other than euros of the thresholds of Directives 2014/23/EU (1), 2014/24/EU (2) and 2014/25/EU (3) are the following:

| EUR 80 000 | BGN | New Bulgarian Lev | 156 464 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CZK | Czech Koruna | 2 184 400 |
| DKK | Danish Krone | 596 520 |
| GBP | Pound Sterling | 62 842 |
| HRK | Croatian Kuna | 610 024 |
| HUF | Hungarian Forint | 24 549 600 |
| PLN | New Polish Zloty | 333 992 |
| RON | New Romanian Leu | 355 632 |
| SEK | Swedish Krona | 731 224 |

EUR 80 000

BGN

New Bulgarian Lev

156 464

CZK

Czech Koruna

2 184 400

DKK

Danish Krone

596 520

GBP

Pound Sterling

62 842

HRK

Croatian Kuna

610 024

HUF

Hungarian Forint

24 549 600

PLN

New Polish Zloty

333 992

RON

New Romanian Leu

355 632

SEK

Swedish Krona

731 224

| EUR 135 000 | BGN | New Bulgarian Lev | 264 033 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CZK | Czech Koruna | 3 686 175 |
| DKK | Danish Krone | 1 006 628 |
| GBP | Pound Sterling | 106 047 |
| HRK | Croatian Kuna | 1 029 416 |
| HUF | Hungarian Forint | 41 427 450 |
| PLN | New Polish Zloty | 563 612 |
| RON | New Romanian Leu | 600 129 |
| SEK | Swedish Krona | 1 233 941 |

EUR 135 000

BGN

New Bulgarian Lev

264 033

CZK

Czech Koruna

3 686 175

DKK

Danish Krone

1 006 628

GBP

Pound Sterling

106 047

HRK

Croatian Kuna

1 029 416

HUF

Hungarian Forint

41 427 450

PLN

New Polish Zloty

563 612

RON

New Romanian Leu

600 129

SEK

Swedish Krona

1 233 941

| EUR 209 000 | BGN | New Bulgarian Lev | 408 762 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CZK | Czech Koruna | 5 706 745 |
| DKK | Danish Krone | 1 558 409 |
| GBP | Pound Sterling | 164 176 |
| HRK | Croatian Kuna | 1 593 688 |
| HUF | Hungarian Forint | 64 135 830 |
| PLN | New Polish Zloty | 872 554 |
| RON | New Romanian Leu | 929 089 |
| SEK | Swedish Krona | 1 910 323 |

EUR 209 000

BGN

New Bulgarian Lev

408 762

CZK

Czech Koruna

5 706 745

DKK

Danish Krone

1 558 409

GBP

Pound Sterling

164 176

HRK

Croatian Kuna

1 593 688

HUF

Hungarian Forint

64 135 830

PLN

New Polish Zloty

872 554

RON

New Romanian Leu

929 089

SEK

Swedish Krona

1 910 323

| EUR 418 000 | BGN | New Bulgarian Lev | 817 524 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CZK | Czech Koruna | 11 413 790 |
| DKK | Danish Krone | 3 116 817 |
| GBP | Pound Sterling | 328 352 |
| HRK | Croatian Kuna | 3 187 375 |
| HUF | Hungarian Forint | 128 271 660 |
| PLN | New Polish Zloty | 1 745 108 |
| RON | New Romanian Leu | 1 858 177 |
| SEK | Swedish Krona | 3 820 645 |

EUR 418 000

BGN

New Bulgarian Lev

817 524

CZK

Czech Koruna

11 413 790

DKK

Danish Krone

3 116 817

GBP

Pound Sterling

328 352

HRK

Croatian Kuna

3 187 375

HUF

Hungarian Forint

128 271 660

PLN

New Polish Zloty

1 745 108

RON

New Romanian Leu

1 858 177

SEK

Swedish Krona

3 820 645

| EUR 750 000 | BGN | New Bulgarian Lev | 1 466 850 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CZK | Czech Koruna | 20 478 750 |
| DKK | Danish Krone | 5 592 375 |
| GBP | Pound Sterling | 589 148 |
| HRK | Croatian Kuna | 5 718 975 |
| HUF | Hungarian Forint | 230 152 500 |
| PLN | New Polish Zloty | 3 131 175 |
| RON | New Romanian Leu | 3 334 050 |
| SEK | Swedish Krona | 6 855 225 |

EUR 750 000

BGN

New Bulgarian Lev

1 466 850

CZK

Czech Koruna

20 478 750

DKK

Danish Krone

5 592 375

GBP

Pound Sterling

589 148

HRK

Croatian Kuna

5 718 975

HUF

Hungarian Forint

230 152 500

PLN

New Polish Zloty

3 131 175

RON

New Romanian Leu

3 334 050

SEK

Swedish Krona

6 855 225

| EUR 1 000 000 | BGN | New Bulgarian Lev | 1 955 800 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CZK | Czech Koruna | 27 305 000 |
| DKK | Danish Krone | 7 456 500 |
| GBP | Pound Sterling | 785 530 |
| HRK | Croatian Kuna | 7 625 300 |
| HUF | Hungarian Forint | 306 870 000 |
| PLN | New Polish Zloty | 4 174 900 |
| RON | New Romanian Leu | 4 445 400 |
| SEK | Swedish Krona | 9 140 300 |

EUR 1 000 000

BGN

New Bulgarian Lev

1 955 800

CZK

Czech Koruna

27 305 000

DKK

Danish Krone

7 456 500

GBP

Pound Sterling

785 530

HRK

Croatian Kuna

7 625 300

HUF

Hungarian Forint

306 870 000

PLN

New Polish Zloty

4 174 900

RON

New Romanian Leu

4 445 400

SEK

Swedish Krona

9 140 300

| EUR 5 225 000 | BGN | New Bulgarian Lev | 10 219 055 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CZK | Czech Koruna | 142 668 625 |
| DKK | Danish Krone | 38 960 213 |
| GBP | Pound Sterling | 4 104 394 |
| HRK | Croatian Kuna | 39 842 193 |
| HUF | Hungarian Forint | 1 603 395 750 |
| PLN | New Polish Zloty | 21 813 853 |
| RON | New Romanian Leu | 23 227 215 |
| SEK | Swedish Krona | 47 758 068 |

EUR 5 225 000

BGN

New Bulgarian Lev

10 219 055

CZK

Czech Koruna

142 668 625

DKK

Danish Krone

38 960 213

GBP

Pound Sterling

4 104 394

HRK

Croatian Kuna

39 842 193

HUF

Hungarian Forint

1 603 395 750

PLN

New Polish Zloty

21 813 853

RON

New Romanian Leu

23 227 215

SEK

Swedish Krona

47 758 068

---

(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65.

(3)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.

---

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7682 — Goldman Sachs/Altor/Hamlet)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 392/02)

On 5 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7682. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7682. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7808 — Bain Capital Investors/Autodistribution Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 392/03)

On 18 November 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7808. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7808. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 November 2015

(2015/C 392/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0651 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,52 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4605 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70620 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2622 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0832 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2090 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,033 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,89 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2607 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4467 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0675 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4763 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4229 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2547 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6368 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5074 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 229,46 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9808 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8048 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6335 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 618,17 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5192 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,145 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,4467 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,141 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9550 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6141 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,6582 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0651

JPY

Japanese yen

130,52

DKK

Danish krone

7,4605

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70620

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2622

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0832

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2090

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,033

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,89

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2607

RON

Romanian leu

4,4467

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0675

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4763

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4229

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2547

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6368

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5074

KRW

South Korean won

1 229,46

ZAR

South African rand

14,9808

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8048

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6335

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 618,17

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5192

PHP

Philippine peso

50,145

RUB

Russian rouble

70,4467

THB

Thai baht

38,141

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9550

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6141

INR

Indian rupee

70,6582

---

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

---

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/6

---

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMISSION PROPOSALS

(2015/C 392/05)

List of withdrawn proposals

| Document | Inter-institutional procedure | Title |
| --- | --- | --- |
| COM(1998) 0637 | — | Proposal for a Council Decision on the Representation and Position Taking of the Community at International Level in the context of Economic and Monetary Union |

Document

Inter-institutional procedure

Title

COM(1998) 0637

—

Proposal for a Council Decision on the Representation and Position Taking of the Community at International Level in the context of Economic and Monetary Union

---

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/7

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 392/06)

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2015) 8093 | 24 November 2015 | Trichloroethylene
  EC No 201-167-4
  CAS No 79-01-6 | Vlisco Netherlands BV, Binnen Parallelweg 2, 5701 PH, Helmond, Netherlands | REACH/15/5/0
  REACH/15/5/1 | Use as a solvent for the removal and recovery of resin from dyed cloth
  Use as a solvent in a process to recover and purify resin from process water | 21 April 2028 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.
  Research on a new solvent-based technology with the potential to develop a sustainable suitable alternative will be carried out under a 12-year research and development plan. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2015) 8093

24 November 2015

Trichloroethylene

EC No 201-167-4

CAS No 79-01-6

Vlisco Netherlands BV, Binnen Parallelweg 2, 5701 PH, Helmond, Netherlands

REACH/15/5/0

REACH/15/5/1

Use as a solvent for the removal and recovery of resin from dyed cloth

Use as a solvent in a process to recover and purify resin from process water

21 April 2028

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.

Research on a new solvent-based technology with the potential to develop a sustainable suitable alternative will be carried out under a 12-year research and development plan.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

---

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/8

---

Notice to importers

Imports of tuna products from Thailand into the European Union

(2015/C 392/07)

By a notice to importers published in the Official Journal C 220 of 1 August 2013, p. 7, the Commission advised EU operators presenting documentary evidence of origin (Form A — Generalised System of Preferences) in order to benefit from preferential treatment for canned tuna and frozen tuna loins of HS subheading 1604 14 imported from Thailand to take all necessary precautions, as there were reasonable doubts concerning the proper application of the preferential tariff treatment and the applicability of proofs of origin presented in the Union for those goods. The release of the goods in question for free circulation could thus give rise to a customs debt, lead to fraud and consequently, negatively affect the EU’s financial interests.

In accordance with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1421/2013 (1), amending Annexes I, II and IV to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, Thailand was removed from the list of the Union’s GSP beneficiary countries with effect as of 1 January 2015.

The notice to importers published in the Official Journal C 220 of 1 August 2013 has therefore become devoid of purpose as regards consignments of the products concerned declared for release for free circulation on or after 1 January 2015 and is hereby withdrawn.

---

(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1421/2013 of 30 October 2013 amending Annexes I, II and IV to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (OJ L 355, 31.12.2013, p. 1).

---

European Data Protection Supervisor

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/9

---

Executive summary of Opinion No 4/2015 of the European Data Protection Supervisor, ‘Towards a new digital ethics: Data, dignity and technology’

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website www.edps.europa.eu)

(2015/C 392/08)

The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) is an independent institution of the EU, responsible under Article 41.2 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). ‘With respect to the processing of personal data ... for ensuring that the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy, are respected by the Community institutions and bodies’, and ‘... for advising Community institutions and bodies and data subjects on all matters concerning the processing of personal data’. He was appointed in December 2014 together with Assistant Supervisor with the specific remit of being more constructive and proactive. The EDPS published in March 2015 a five-year strategy setting out how he intends to implement this remit, and to be accountable for doing so.

This Opinion follows on from the EDPS’s previous Opinion on the General Data Protection Regulation which aimed to assist the main institutions of the EU in reaching the right consensus on workable, future-oriented set of rules which bolsters the rights and freedoms of the individual. Like the Opinion on Mobile Health in early 2015, it addresses the challenge of data protection to ‘go digital’ — the third objective of the EDPS Strategy —‘customising existing data protection principles to fit the global digital arena’, also in the light of the EU’s plans for the Digital Single Market. It is consistent with the approach of the Article 29 Working Party on data protection aspects of the use of new technologies, such as the ‘Internet of Things’, to which the EDPS contributed as a full member of the group.

‘Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.’

Article 1, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Article 1

The fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data have become more important for the protection of human dignity than ever before. They are enshrined in the EU Treaties and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. They enable individuals to develop their own personalities, to lead independent lives, to innovate and to exercise other rights and freedoms. The data protection principles defined in the EU Charter — necessity, proportionality, fairness, data minimisation, purpose limitation, consent and transparency — apply to data processing in its entirety, to collection as well as to use.

The fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data have become more important for the protection of human dignity than ever before.

Technology should not dictate values and rights, but neither should their relationship be reduced to a false dichotomy. The digital revolution promises benefits for health, the environment, international development and economic efficiency. Under the EU’s plans for a digital single market, cloud computing, the ‘Internet of Things’, big data and other technologies are considered key to competitiveness and growth. Business models are exploiting new capabilities for the massive collection, instantaneous transmission, combination and reuse of personal information for unforeseen purposes, and justified by long and impenetrable privacy policies. This has placed the principles of data protection under new strains, which calls for fresh thinking on how they are applied.

Technology should not dictate values and rights, but neither should their relationship be reduced to a false dichotomy.

In today’s digital environment, adherence to the law is not enough; we have to consider the ethical dimension of data processing. The EU’s regulatory framework already allows room for flexible, case-by-case decisions and safeguards when handling personal information. The reform of the regulatory framework will be a good step forward. But there are deeper questions as to the impact of trends in data driven society on dignity, individual freedom and the functioning of democracy.

In today’s digital environment, adherence to the law is not enough; we have to consider the ethical dimension of data processing.

These issues have engineering, philosophical, legal and moral implications. This Opinion highlights some major technology trends which may involve unacceptable processing of personal information or may interfere with the right to privacy. It outlines a four-tier ‘big data protection ecosystem’ to respond to the digital challenge: a collective effort, underpinned by ethical considerations.

These issues have engineering, philosophical, legal and moral implications.

| (1) | Future-oriented regulation of data processing and respect for the rights to privacy and to data protection. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Future-oriented regulation of data processing and respect for the rights to privacy and to data protection.

| (2) | Accountable controllers who determine personal information processing. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Accountable controllers who determine personal information processing.

| (3) | Privacy-conscious engineering and design of data-processing products and services. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Privacy-conscious engineering and design of data-processing products and services.

| (4) | Empowered individuals. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Empowered individuals.

The European Data Protection Supervisor wants to stimulate an open and informed discussion in and outside the EU, involving civil society, designers, companies, academics, public authorities and regulators. The new EU data protection ethics board we will establish at the EDPS will help define a new digital ethics, allowing to realise better the benefits of technology for society and the economy in ways which reinforce the rights and freedoms of individuals.

The European Data Protection Supervisor wants to stimulate an open and informed discussion in and outside the EU,

4.   Conclusion: Time to deepen the discussion

Conclusion: Time to deepen the discussion

Privacy and data protection are part of the solution, not the problem. For the time being, technology is controlled by humans. It is not easy to classify neatly these potential developments as good or bad, desirable or harmful, advantageous or detrimental, even less so when a number of potential trends have to be seen in context. Policymakers, technology developers, business developers and all of us must seriously consider if and how we want to influence the development of technology and its application. But equally important is that the EU considers urgently the ethics and the place for human dignity in the technologies of the future.

Data protection principles have proven capable of safeguarding individuals and their privacy from the risks of irresponsible data processing. But today’s trends may require a completely fresh approach. So we are opening a new debate to what extent the application of the principles such as fairness and legitimacy is sufficient. The data protection community can play a new role using existing tools like prior checks and authorisations — because no other bodies are equipped to scrutinise such data processing. With technology, global innovation and human connectedness developing at breakneck speed, we have an opportunity to attract attention, to trigger interest and to build a consensus.

With this Opinion we hope to provide a framework for a wider and deeper discussion on how the EU can ensure the integrity of its values at the same time as it embraces the benefits of the new technologies.

Done in Brussels, 11 September 2015.

Giovanni BUTTARELLI

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

---

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/11

---

Executive Summary of the second Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website www.edps.europa.eu)

(2015/C 392/09)

I.   THE PROPOSAL AND ITS CONTEXT

| 1. | Discussions on a possible Passenger Name Record (PNR) scheme within the EU have been developing since 2007, with the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the issue (1). The original Proposal intended to oblige the air carriers operating flights between the EU and third countries to transmit PNR data to competent authorities for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious crime. The EDPS issued an opinion on this proposal (2) and followed its developments. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Discussions on a possible Passenger Name Record (PNR) scheme within the EU have been developing since 2007, with the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the issue (1). The original Proposal intended to oblige the air carriers operating flights between the EU and third countries to transmit PNR data to competent authorities for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious crime. The EDPS issued an opinion on this proposal (2) and followed its developments.

| 2. | On 2 February 2011, the Commission adopted a new Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Records data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (hereafter ‘the Proposal’). The EDPS issued an Opinion on this new Proposal (3), where he made additional comments and remarks on the text regarding among others the necessity and the proportionality of the proposal, its scope, the exchange of information between Member States, and the retention of PNR data. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On 2 February 2011, the Commission adopted a new Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Records data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (hereafter ‘the Proposal’). The EDPS issued an Opinion on this new Proposal (3), where he made additional comments and remarks on the text regarding among others the necessity and the proportionality of the proposal, its scope, the exchange of information between Member States, and the retention of PNR data.

| 3. | The Council adopted a general approach on the text proposed by the Commission on 23 April 2012 (4), in view to start the negotiations with the Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council adopted a general approach on the text proposed by the Commission on 23 April 2012 (4), in view to start the negotiations with the Parliament.

| 4. | The legislative procedure has been in abeyance since the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) rejected the Proposal on 24 April 2013 (5), questioning its necessity and proportionality. Recently, the discussions have been revived following the terrorist attacks that took place in Paris in January 2015 (6). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The legislative procedure has been in abeyance since the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) rejected the Proposal on 24 April 2013 (5), questioning its necessity and proportionality. Recently, the discussions have been revived following the terrorist attacks that took place in Paris in January 2015 (6).

| 5. | In its Resolution of 11 February 2015 on anti-terrorism measures (7), the European Parliament committed itself ‘to work towards the finalisation of an EU PNR Directive by the end of the year’ and urged the Commission ‘to set out the consequences of the ECJ judgment on the Data Retention Directive and its possible impact on the EU PNR Directive’. The European Parliament also encouraged the Council to make progress on the Data Protection Package so that the ‘trilogue’ negotiations on both the EU PNR Directive and the Data Protection Package could take place in parallel. The Commission was also invited to hear the views of independent experts from the law enforcement, security and intelligence communities and representatives of the Article 29 Working Party to discuss the necessity and proportionality of the PNR scheme. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In its Resolution of 11 February 2015 on anti-terrorism measures (7), the European Parliament committed itself ‘to work towards the finalisation of an EU PNR Directive by the end of the year’ and urged the Commission ‘to set out the consequences of the ECJ judgment on the Data Retention Directive and its possible impact on the EU PNR Directive’. The European Parliament also encouraged the Council to make progress on the Data Protection Package so that the ‘trilogue’ negotiations on both the EU PNR Directive and the Data Protection Package could take place in parallel. The Commission was also invited to hear the views of independent experts from the law enforcement, security and intelligence communities and representatives of the Article 29 Working Party to discuss the necessity and proportionality of the PNR scheme.

| 6. | In addition, the Resolution called on the Member States ‘to make optimal use of existing platforms, databases and alert systems at European level, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS) and the Advanced Passenger Information Systems (APIS)’ (8) and strongly encouraged ‘better exchange of information between Member States’ law enforcement authorities and EU agencies’ (9). |
| --- | --- |

6.

In addition, the Resolution called on the Member States ‘to make optimal use of existing platforms, databases and alert systems at European level, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS) and the Advanced Passenger Information Systems (APIS)’ (8) and strongly encouraged ‘better exchange of information between Member States’ law enforcement authorities and EU agencies’ (9).

| 7. | In this context, an updated report has been presented by the rapporteur for the LIBE Committee, on 17 February 2015 (10). Several modifications to the Commission proposal were proposed in this document, such as the inclusion of intra-EU flights. The Article 29 Working Party sent a letter to the LIBE Committee to submit its comments and remarks on the report (11). The LIBE Committee adopted its orientation vote on 15 July 2015 and agreed to enter into negotiations with the Council. |
| --- | --- |

7.

In this context, an updated report has been presented by the rapporteur for the LIBE Committee, on 17 February 2015 (10). Several modifications to the Commission proposal were proposed in this document, such as the inclusion of intra-EU flights. The Article 29 Working Party sent a letter to the LIBE Committee to submit its comments and remarks on the report (11). The LIBE Committee adopted its orientation vote on 15 July 2015 and agreed to enter into negotiations with the Council.

| 8. | This EDPS Opinion will address the changes in the Proposal as proposed by the LIBE Committee and the Council in view of the trilogue negotiations that are due to begin by this month. This Opinion will take into account the Digital Rights Ireland judgement of the European Court of Justice (12) issued on 8 April 2014 (hereinafter ‘the DRI judgement’) and integrate it into its reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

8.

This EDPS Opinion will address the changes in the Proposal as proposed by the LIBE Committee and the Council in view of the trilogue negotiations that are due to begin by this month. This Opinion will take into account the Digital Rights Ireland judgement of the European Court of Justice (12) issued on 8 April 2014 (hereinafter ‘the DRI judgement’) and integrate it into its reasoning.

| 9. | The EDPS acknowledges that Europe is facing serious terrorist threats and has to take meaningful action. The combat against terrorism and serious crime is a legitimate interest pursued by the legislator and the EDPS, as an EU independent supervisory institution, is not a priori in favour or against any measure. In full respect for the role of the legislator in assessing the necessity and the proportionality of the proposed measures, the EDPS respectfully analyses in the present Opinion their implications for the protection of the personal data of individuals and their privacy, taking into account the existing data protection and privacy legislative framework and case-law. This analysis relates to our mission to advise the institutions on the data protection implications of their policies, particularly when they have a more serious impact on the rights to privacy and data protection. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The EDPS acknowledges that Europe is facing serious terrorist threats and has to take meaningful action. The combat against terrorism and serious crime is a legitimate interest pursued by the legislator and the EDPS, as an EU independent supervisory institution, is not a priori in favour or against any measure. In full respect for the role of the legislator in assessing the necessity and the proportionality of the proposed measures, the EDPS respectfully analyses in the present Opinion their implications for the protection of the personal data of individuals and their privacy, taking into account the existing data protection and privacy legislative framework and case-law. This analysis relates to our mission to advise the institutions on the data protection implications of their policies, particularly when they have a more serious impact on the rights to privacy and data protection.

IV.   CONCLUSION

| 62. | The EDPS welcomes the various improvements made by the Council and the LIBE Committee on the Proposal, for example regarding the specific provisions on data protection, the presence of a Data Protection Officer, or a specific reference to the power of the supervisory authorities. |
| --- | --- |

62.

The EDPS welcomes the various improvements made by the Council and the LIBE Committee on the Proposal, for example regarding the specific provisions on data protection, the presence of a Data Protection Officer, or a specific reference to the power of the supervisory authorities.

| 63. | However, the essential prerequisite for a PNR scheme — i.e. compliance with necessity and proportionality principles — is still not met in the Proposal. The Proposal does not provide for a comprehensive evaluation of the ability of the current existing instruments to reach the purpose of the EU PNR scheme. In addition, it does not set forth any detailed analysis of the extent to which less intrusive measures could achieve the purpose of the EU PNR scheme. Finally, the non-targeted and bulk collection and processing of data of the PNR scheme amount to a measure of general surveillance. In the view of the EDPS, the only purpose which would be compliant with the requirements of transparency and proportionality, would be the use of PNR data on a case-by-case basis but only in case of a serious and concrete threat established by more specific indicators. |
| --- | --- |

63.

However, the essential prerequisite for a PNR scheme — i.e. compliance with necessity and proportionality principles — is still not met in the Proposal. The Proposal does not provide for a comprehensive evaluation of the ability of the current existing instruments to reach the purpose of the EU PNR scheme. In addition, it does not set forth any detailed analysis of the extent to which less intrusive measures could achieve the purpose of the EU PNR scheme. Finally, the non-targeted and bulk collection and processing of data of the PNR scheme amount to a measure of general surveillance. In the view of the EDPS, the only purpose which would be compliant with the requirements of transparency and proportionality, would be the use of PNR data on a case-by-case basis but only in case of a serious and concrete threat established by more specific indicators.

| 64. | Since there is no information available to the effect that the necessity and proportionality of the measures proposed have been adequately demonstrated, the EDPS considers that the Proposal, even modified, still does not meet the standards of Articles 7, 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union, Article 16 of the TFEU and Article 8 of the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

64.

Since there is no information available to the effect that the necessity and proportionality of the measures proposed have been adequately demonstrated, the EDPS considers that the Proposal, even modified, still does not meet the standards of Articles 7, 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union, Article 16 of the TFEU and Article 8 of the ECHR.

| 65. | The EDPS would encourage the legislators to further explore the feasibility against current threats of more selective and less intrusive surveillance measures based on more specific initiatives focusing, where appropriate, on targeted categories of flights, passengers or countries. |
| --- | --- |

65.

The EDPS would encourage the legislators to further explore the feasibility against current threats of more selective and less intrusive surveillance measures based on more specific initiatives focusing, where appropriate, on targeted categories of flights, passengers or countries.

| 66. | In addition to the essential shortcomings of the Proposal identified above, the main comments of the EDPS in the present Opinion concern the following aspects:






  — | the Proposal should limit the data retention period to what is justified by objective criteria explaining the period retained; |
| --- | --- | --- |

66.

In addition to the essential shortcomings of the Proposal identified above, the main comments of the EDPS in the present Opinion concern the following aspects:

—

the Proposal should limit the data retention period to what is justified by objective criteria explaining the period retained;

| — | the proposal should more explicitly provide that the PNR data may not be used for other purposes than the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious transnational crimes; |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposal should more explicitly provide that the PNR data may not be used for other purposes than the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences and serious transnational crimes;

| — | a prior approval by a court or an independent administrative body should be obtained, in principle, upon a request of access to the data by a competent authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

a prior approval by a court or an independent administrative body should be obtained, in principle, upon a request of access to the data by a competent authority;

| — | the Proposal should refer to appropriate safeguards guaranteeing the security of the data processed by the PIU; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Proposal should refer to appropriate safeguards guaranteeing the security of the data processed by the PIU;

| — | the scope of the PNR scheme should be much more limited with regards to the type of crime. Additionally, the definition of ‘serious transnational crime’ and ‘immediate and serious threat to public security’ should be further defined; |
| --- | --- |

—

the scope of the PNR scheme should be much more limited with regards to the type of crime. Additionally, the definition of ‘serious transnational crime’ and ‘immediate and serious threat to public security’ should be further defined;

| — | the criteria required to access PNR data by the competent authorities should be better defined and more precise; |
| --- | --- |

—

the criteria required to access PNR data by the competent authorities should be better defined and more precise;

| — | the legislators are invited to wait until the adoption of the new Data Protection Package to fully align the obligations of the Proposal with the new provisions adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

the legislators are invited to wait until the adoption of the new Data Protection Package to fully align the obligations of the Proposal with the new provisions adopted;

| — | the evaluation of the Directive should be based on comprehensive data, including the number of persons effectively convicted and not only prosecuted, on the basis of the processing of their data. |
| --- | --- |

—

the evaluation of the Directive should be based on comprehensive data, including the number of persons effectively convicted and not only prosecuted, on the basis of the processing of their data.

Bruxelles, 24 September 2015.

Giovanni BUTTARELLI

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  COM(2007) 654 final.

1

(2)  Opinion of the EDPS of 20 December 2007 on the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the use of Passenger name record (PNR) data for law enforcement purposes (OJ C 110, 1.5.2008, p. 1).

2

(3)  Opinion of the EDPS of 25 March 2011 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.

3

(4)  General Approach of the Council, text adopted on 23 April 2013, 8916/2.

4

(5)  See Resolution of the European Parliament of 23 April 2013.

5

(6)  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting For the connection made with EU PNR proposals; see e.g. the statement by the members of the European Council following the Informal meeting of the Heads of State or Government Brussels, 12 February 2015: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/02/150212-european-council-statement-fight-against-terrorism/ and the report on implementation of measures by the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9422-2015-REV-1/en/pdf

6

(7)  Resolution 2015/2530 of the European Parliament.

7

(8)  Resolution, paragraph 11.

8

(9)  Resolution, paragraph 22.

9

(10)  The report is available on the following link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2015-0248&language=EN

10

(11)  Letter of 19 March 2015 from the Article 29 Working Party to the Chairman of the LIBE Committee.

11

(12)  CJUE, Digital Rights Ireland Ltd,8 April 2014, in joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12.

12

Digital Rights Ireland Ltd,

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/14

---

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand

(2015/C 392/10)

The European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (‘the basic Regulation’).

1.   Request for review

The request for review was lodged by Metpro Limited (‘the applicant’), an importer of certain types of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron, for imports originating in the People's Republic of China.

As the measures also apply to imports originating in Thailand, the Commission has decided on its own initiative to initiate the review for imports originating in Thailand as well.

The review is limited to the examination of the product scope as regards the clarification of whether certain product types fall within the scope of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand (‘the countries concerned’).

2.   Product under review

The product subject to this review is threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, excluding bodies of compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid (‘the product under review’), currently falling within CN code ex 7307 19 10 (TARIC code 7307191010).

3.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 (2).

4.   Grounds for the review

The applicant request the exclusion of certain threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron from the scope of the current anti-dumping measures. The products alleged to be excluded are electrical conduit fittings (elbows, bends and T-shaped) with a standard metric thread pitch of 1,5 mm according to ISO Metric Form BS3463.

The request pursuant to Article 11(3) is based on prima facie evidence provided by the applicant that the basic physical, technical and/or chemical characteristics of the products to be excluded significantly differ from those of the product under review. The same evidence is considered applicable to the product under review from both countries concerned.

Therefore, it is appropriate to review the current measures as far as the scope of the product under review from the countries concerned is concerned. Any Regulation which may result from this review might possibly have a retroactive effect as of the date of imposition of the existing measures, or alternatively from a later date, for instance the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. All interested parties, and in particular importers, are invited to make their views known on this issue, and submit any evidence supporting those views.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after informing the Member States, that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of a partial interim review limited to the examination of the product scope as regards the clarification of whether certain product types fall within the scope of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of the product under review, the Commission hereby initiates a review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

5.1.   
  Questionnaires

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the applicant as importer, to the known exporting producers in the People's Republic of China and Thailand and to the authorities of those countries, to known producers in the Union, to known importers and users. This information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

5.2.   
  Other written submissions

Subject to the provisions of this Notice, all interested parties are invited to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence. Unless otherwise specified, this information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

5.3.   
  Possibility to be heard by the Commission investigation services

All interested parties may request to be heard by the Commission investigation services. Any request to be heard must be made in writing and must specify the reasons for the request. For hearings on issues pertaining to the initial stage of the investigation the request must be submitted within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, a request to be heard must be submitted within the specific deadlines set by the Commission in its communication with the parties.

5.4.   
  Instructions for making written submissions and sending completed questionnaires and correspondence

Information submitted to the Commission for the purpose of trade defence investigations shall be free from copyrights. Interested parties, before submitting to the Commission information and/or data which is subject to third party copyrights, must request specific permission to the copyright holder explicitly allowing a) the Commission to use the information and data for the purpose of this trade defence proceeding and b) to provide the information and/or data to interested parties to this investigation in a form that allows them to exercise their rights of defence.

All written submissions, including the information requested in this Notice, completed questionnaires and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled ‘Limited’ (3).

Interested parties providing ‘Limited’ information are required to furnish non-confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’. These summaries must be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. If an interested party providing confidential information does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, such information may be disregarded.

Interested parties are invited to make all submissions and requests by email including scanned powers of attorney and certification sheets, with the exception of voluminous replies which shall be submitted on a CD-ROM or DVD by hand or by registered mail. By using email, interested parties express their agreement with the rules applicable to electronic submissions contained in the document ‘CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN TRADE DEFENCE CASES’ published on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/june/tradoc_148003.pdf The interested parties must indicate their name, address, telephone and a valid email address and they should ensure that the provided email address is a functioning official business email which is checked on a daily basis. Once contact details are provided, the Commission will communicate with interested parties by email only, unless they explicitly request to receive all documents from the Commission by another means of communication or unless the nature of the document to be sent requires the use of a registered mail. For further rules and information concerning correspondence with the Commission including principles that apply to submissions by email, interested parties should consult the communication instructions with interested parties referred to above.

Commission address for correspondence:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Trade |
| Directorate H |
| Office: CHAR 04/039 |
| 1040 Bruxelles/Brussels |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: TRADE-R623-MALLEABLE-FITTINGS@ec.europa.eu |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: CHAR 04/039

1040 Bruxelles/Brussels

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: TRADE-R623-MALLEABLE-FITTINGS@ec.europa.eu

6.   Non-cooperation

In cases where any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information may be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

Failure to give a computerised response shall not be deemed to constitute non-cooperation, provided that the interested party shows that presenting the response as requested would result in an unreasonable extra burden or unreasonable additional cost. The interested party should immediately contact the Commission.

7.   Hearing Officer

Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised.

A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. For hearings on issues pertaining to the initial stage of the investigation the request must be submitted within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, a request to be heard must be submitted within specific deadlines set by the Commission in its communication with the parties.

The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered on issues pertaining, among other things, to the product scope of the current measures.

For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on DG Trade's website: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/contacts/hearing-officer/

8.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 11(5) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

9.   Processing of personal data

Any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (4).

---

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

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand and terminating the proceeding with regard to Indonesia (OJ L 129, 14.5.2013, p. 1).

(3)  A ‘Limited’ document is a document which is considered confidential pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51) and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement). It is also a document protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

(4)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 25.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/18

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer/Top-Team Zentraleinkauf)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 392/11)

| 1. | On 18 November 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Transgourmet Holding AG (‘Transgourmet’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of C+C Pfeiffer GmbH (‘C+C Pfeiffer’, Austria) and joint control of Top-Team Zentraleinkauf GmbH (‘Top-Team’, Austria) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 18 November 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Transgourmet Holding AG (‘Transgourmet’, Switzerland) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of C+C Pfeiffer GmbH (‘C+C Pfeiffer’, Austria) and joint control of Top-Team Zentraleinkauf GmbH (‘Top-Team’, Austria) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   for Transgourmet: wholesale of food via cash & carry outlets and mail-order delivery,
  —   for C+C Pfeiffer: wholesale of food via cash & carry outlets and mail-order delivery, wholesale of drinks via mail-order delivery, retail sale of drinks,
  —   for Top-Team: provision of procurement and distribution services for wholesalers and retailers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Transgourmet: wholesale of food via cash & carry outlets and mail-order delivery,

—   for C+C Pfeiffer: wholesale of food via cash & carry outlets and mail-order delivery, wholesale of drinks via mail-order delivery, retail sale of drinks,

—   for Top-Team: provision of procurement and distribution services for wholesalers and retailers.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the 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 this Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the 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 this Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer/Top-Team Zentraleinkauf, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number Case M.7829 — Transgourmet/C+C Pfeiffer/Top-Team Zentraleinkauf, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---