# Official Journal C 303/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.303.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 303 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5619 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.303.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 303

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5619 October 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 303/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2013/C 303/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6987 — BP Europa/Grupa Lotos/Lotos Tank) (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 303/01

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

1

1

2013/C 303/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6987 — BP Europa/Grupa Lotos/Lotos Tank) (
  1
  )

1

3

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 303/03 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |
| 2013/C 303/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 19 November 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(1) — TV & computer monitor tubes — Rapporteur: France | 5 |
| 2013/C 303/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 3 December 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(2) — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes — Rapporteur: France | 6 |
| 2013/C 303/06 | Final report of the Hearing Officer — TV and computer monitor tubes (COMP/39.437) | 7 |
| 2013/C 303/07 | Summary of Commission Decision of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and computer monitor tubes) (notified under document C(2012) 8839)
   (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2013/C 303/08 | Notice from the Ministry of the Environment of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons | 17 |
| 2013/C 303/09 | Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons | 21 |
| 2013/C 303/10 | Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons | 23 |
| 2013/C 303/11 | Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons | 25 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 303/03

Euro exchange rates

4

2013/C 303/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 19 November 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(1) — TV & computer monitor tubes — Rapporteur: France

5

2013/C 303/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 3 December 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(2) — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes — Rapporteur: France

6

2013/C 303/06

Final report of the Hearing Officer — TV and computer monitor tubes (COMP/39.437)

7

2013/C 303/07

Summary of Commission Decision of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and computer monitor tubes) (notified under document C(2012) 8839)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2012) 8839)

1

13

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2013/C 303/08

Notice from the Ministry of the Environment of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

17

2013/C 303/09

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

21

2013/C 303/10

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

23

2013/C 303/11

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

25

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 303/12 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7020 — LVMH/Loro Piana) (
  1
  ) | 27 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 303/13 | Notice concerning a request in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Request from a contracting entity | 28 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 303/12

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7020 — LVMH/Loro Piana) (
  1
  )

1

27

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2013/C 303/13

Notice concerning a request in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Request from a contracting entity

28

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (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

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/1

---

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

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 303/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 18.9.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.36212 (13/N) |
| Member State | France |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Mesures de soutien accordées aux entreprises ostréicoles touchées par la mortalité des huîtres creuses |
| Legal basis | | Décret no 83-228 du 22 mars 1983 fixant le régime de l’autorisation des exploitations de cultures marines |

Date of adoption of the decision

18.9.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.36212 (13/N)

Member State

France

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Mesures de soutien accordées aux entreprises ostréicoles touchées par la mortalité des huîtres creuses

Legal basis

Décret no 83-228 du 22 mars 1983 fixant le régime de l’autorisation des exploitations de cultures marines

| | Arrêté du 28 décembre 1983 portant application de l’article 2 (3o) du décret no 83-228 du 22 mars 1983 fixant le régime de l’autorisation des exploitations de cultures marines |
| --- | --- |

Arrêté du 28 décembre 1983 portant application de l’article 2 (3o) du décret no 83-228 du 22 mars 1983 fixant le régime de l’autorisation des exploitations de cultures marines

| | Projet de circulaire DPMA/SDAEP/C Aide à l’allègement des charges financières à destination des ostréiculteurs, producteurs ou utilisateurs d’huîtres creuses touchés par les conséquences des mortalités ostréicoles affectant ce secteur de production. |
| --- | --- |

Projet de circulaire DPMA/SDAEP/C Aide à l’allègement des charges financières à destination des ostréiculteurs, producteurs ou utilisateurs d’huîtres creuses touchés par les conséquences des mortalités ostréicoles affectant ce secteur de production.

| | Projet de circulaire DPMA/SDAEP/C Indemnisation des pertes de récolte et des pertes de fonds à destination des ostréiculteurs, producteurs ou utilisateurs d’huîtres creuses touchés par les conséquences des mortalités ostréicoles ayant affecté ce secteur de production en 2012 |
| --- | --- |

Projet de circulaire DPMA/SDAEP/C Indemnisation des pertes de récolte et des pertes de fonds à destination des ostréiculteurs, producteurs ou utilisateurs d’huîtres creuses touchés par les conséquences des mortalités ostréicoles ayant affecté ce secteur de production en 2012

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Compensation of damages caused by natural disaster, SMEs

Form of aid

Direct grant, Other — Exonération fiscale

Budget

| | Overall budget: EUR 18 250 000 |
| --- | --- |

Overall budget: EUR 18 250 000

| | Annual budget: EUR 18 250 000 |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: EUR 18 250 000

Intensity

12 %

Duration (period)

15.5.2013-31.12.2014

Economic sectors

Marine aquaculture

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministère de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie, ministère délégué aux transports, à la mer et à la pêche, direction des pêches maritimes et de l’aquaculture |
| --- |
| 3 place de Fontenoy |
| 75007 Paris |
| FRANCE |

Ministère de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie, ministère délégué aux transports, à la mer et à la pêche, direction des pêches maritimes et de l’aquaculture

3 place de Fontenoy

75007 Paris

FRANCE

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6987 — BP Europa/Grupa Lotos/Lotos Tank)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 303/02

On 11 October 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6987. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6987. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 October 2013

2013/C 303/03

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3684 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,73 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4586 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84515 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7686 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2343 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0985 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,782 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 294,43 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7027 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1808 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4509 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,6903 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4173 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4089 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6099 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6125 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6934 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 451,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,3871 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3431 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6160 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 502,27 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3197 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,863 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,5830 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,489 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9448 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4977 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,8350 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3684

JPY

Japanese yen

133,73

DKK

Danish krone

7,4586

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84515

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7686

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2343

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0985

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,782

HUF

Hungarian forint

294,43

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7027

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1808

RON

Romanian leu

4,4509

TRY

Turkish lira

2,6903

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4173

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4089

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6099

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6125

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6934

KRW

South Korean won

1 451,88

ZAR

South African rand

13,3871

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3431

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6160

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 502,27

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3197

PHP

Philippine peso

58,863

RUB

Russian rouble

43,5830

THB

Thai baht

42,489

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9448

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4977

INR

Indian rupee

83,8350

---

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

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 19 November 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(1) — TV & computer monitor tubes

Rapporteur: France

2013/C 303/04

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

1.

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

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

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the complex of agreements and/or concerted practices constitutes a single and continuous cartel infringement in the case of each of the following cartels in the time frame the respective infringements existed: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.

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

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the complex of agreements and/or concerted practices had the object of restricting competition in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreements and/or concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between the Member States of the EU and between other contracting parties to the EEA Agreement in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, including the imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned (including the joint ventures) in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, including the imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned (including the joint ventures) in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment on the duration of the infringement for each addressee in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment on the duration of the infringement for each addressee in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.

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

7.

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

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 3 December 2012 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.437(2) — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes

Rapporteur: France

2013/C 303/05

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

1.

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

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

2.

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

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.

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

4.

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

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

5.

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

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

6.

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

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agree with the Commission's assessment of the inability to pay request. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agree with the Commission's assessment of the inability to pay request.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

8.

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

| 9. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

9.

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

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/7

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

TV and computer monitor tubes

(COMP/39.437) (2)

2013/C 303/06

This case concerns two cartels between Asian and European producers for colour display tubes used in computer monitors (‘CDT’) and colour picture tubes incorporated in colour televisions (‘CPT’).

BACKGROUND

The Commission's investigation was triggered by an immunity application submitted by the Chunghwa group of companies (‘Chunghwa’) in March 2007. Chunghwa was subsequently granted conditional immunity. This was followed by inspections carried out on the premises of Samsung SDI Germany and [Philips/LGE joint venture]. In November 2007, the Samsung, Panasonic and Philips groups of companies each filed leniency applications followed by Technicolor SA in March 2008.

The Hearing Officer originally responsible for this case was Ms Karen Williams. After her departure from the Hearing Office in February 2010, I took over the case from 1 March 2010 onwards.

PROCEDURE

A.   Statement of objections

On 23 November 2009, the Commission adopted a statement of objections (‘SO’) in which it came to the preliminary conclusion that two single and continuous infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53(1) EEA had been committed.

The first infringement occurred in the CDT sector and lasted nine and a half years. It involved the four undertakings: Chunghwa (3), Samsung (4), Philips (5) and LGE (6).

The second infringement concerns the CPT sector and lasted nine years. The eight undertakings committing the infringement in addition to the four already mentioned were: Panasonic Corporation, Toshiba (7), their joint venture MT Picture Display Co. Ltd (‘MPTD’) and Technicolor.

All the undertakings mentioned (collectively referred to as ‘the parties’ below) received the SO in November 2009 and were invited to make known their views on the objections contained therein in accordance with Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (8).

1.   Access to file

Following receipt of the SO, the parties were granted access to documents in the Commission file via a DVD and to oral corporate statements on Commission premises. Three parties asked for additional access to file.

Toshiba requested further access to certain documents which the providers had partly redacted claiming confidentiality. After a review of the claims, DG Competition supplied Toshiba with new and less redacted non-confidential versions of the documents at issue.

Panasonic and MTPD jointly submitted first a general request to be granted access to all exculpatory evidence contained in other parties' responses to the SO which was rejected by DG Competition. After having listened to the other parties' presentations at the oral hearing, Panasonic and MPTD filed a more detailed access request which was partially accepted. DG Competition provided Panasonic and MPTD with employee statements which Toshiba had annexed to its reply to the SO.

All three parties did not pursue their requests for additional file access any further. I consider the matter therefore as settled.

2.   Extensions of time limit for replies to the SO

The recipients of the SO were originally given eight weeks for their reply from the day after the receipt of the DVD. All parties, except for Chunghwa, formally sought to be given additional time for their respective comments for various reasons. I partially accepted the requests and granted extensions ranging from two to six weeks. All parties responded in due time.

3.   Application for third person status

[...]

B.   Oral hearing

The oral hearing was scheduled for April but had to be postponed one month because the eruption of an Icelandic volcano did not allow many invited participants to come to Brussels. One invited party objected to the new date because one of its main representatives would not be able to attend the hearing. Given that the alternative dates considered would cause problems for other participants, I was unable to accede to the request.

As a preparation for the oral hearing, I asked the parties to focus in their presentations on the controversial link between the parties' discussions at locations in Asia and the price developments in Europe. Almost all parties expressed their views on this issue.

1.   Oral hearing of individuals

The presentation of one party included statements of employees who had attended alleged cartel meetings. At the explicit wish of the party the names of the individuals making the statements were not inserted in the participants' list distributed to all attendees before the oral hearing. Their identity was known, however, by DG Competition, because the party had attached the employee statements to its written reply to the SO, as well as other addressees of the SO present at the hearing. This presentation as most of the other parties' presentations was subsequently subject to a number of questions by hearing participants. One party introduced with my consent a new document during one of the question times. The document was later added to the Commission file.

To listen to individuals close to the facts of the case as a part of the presentation of a party would seem to be part and parcel of the right to be heard orally. It is, however, probably in the interest of a transparent and fair procedure that in future all names of persons which a party brings to a hearing in order to corroborate certain facts set out in its written submission pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (9) are disclosed before participants convene for the hearing.

2.   Closed sessions

Two parties had been given the opportunity to be partly heard in closed sessions upon their reasoned request. However, since the in camera presentation of one party contained a considerable number of points which obviously were not confidential, I asked the party to reiterate these points in the presence of all other parties, which it did.

3.   Letter of facts concerning decisive influence over MPTD

On 22 December 2010, the Commission informed Toshiba, Panasonic and MPTD in a letter of facts that it intended to use in the final decision certain attached documents, which the three parties themselves had submitted to the Commission after the oral hearing. It explained that the information contained in the documents would corroborate and support the objections set out in the SO regarding the decisive influence of Toshiba and Panasonic over MPTD and hence their liability for the conduct of the joint venture. The parties were given three weeks to submit comments. This initial deadline was extended by another three weeks for Toshiba upon its reasoned request. All parties replied on time.

C.   Supplementary statement of objections

On 1 June 2012, the Commission adopted a supplementary statement of objections (‘SSO’). In comparison with the SO, the SSO replaces one initial objection for another in regard of Philips and added an objection for LGE. Instead of being directly held liable for the infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 EEA before the joint venture [Philips/LGE joint venture] was created with LGE (10), Philips is now accused of being indirectly liable for the infringements as a parent company through certain individualised subsidiaries. LGE is no longer only alleged to have directly infringed the competition rules but now also accused to have indirectly infringed the law through certain individualised subsidiaries before the formation of [Philips/LGE joint venture]. The SSO furthermore adduces new evidence against LGE and Philips concerning their joint liability for the infringement committed by [Philips/LGE joint venture]. In that respect, the SSO represents a mere letter of fact.

Given that the new allegations altered only the legal position of two parties of the larger cartel proceeding on the basis of evidence which originates from LGE, Philips, their joint venture [Philips/LGE joint venture] and its [officer], and relates to these companies, the other addressees of the initial SO were not included in the supplementary proceeding. [Philips/LGE joint venture] was not a recipient of the SO or SSO.

1.   Supplementary access to file

Along with the SSO, the two addressees were provided access via a DVD to documents relating to the respective supplementary objections concerning the liability of LGE and Philips gathered through the additional investigation. In addition, further access was given to documents which were already included in the previous access to file list at the time of the first SO. Since it regarded these parts of the documents as relevant for the supplementary objections, DG Competition obtained the consent of the providers of these documents to disclose information which was treated as confidential at the time of the first access to file. The limited access has been justified with reference to the Notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU which provides for limited access under certain circumstances (11).

LGE and Philips did not submit the matter to me, but I have doubts whether the limited access to file granted in this proceeding is fully compatible with EU law. When raising objections the rights of defence require the Commission normally to make available the entire investigation file. In the case of supplementary objections, access to all documents obtained, produced or assembled after the first access to file granted in the context of the SO should regularly be given.

The fact that the recipients of the SSO were only given limited access amounts in this case however to a mere procedural irregularity. My examination of the parts of the file which recipients did not see has not produced any elements of potentially exculpatory nature. Those elements which might possibly be considered as exculpatory were known by the parties. At any rate, even if LGE and Philips had been able to avail themselves of the not disclosed documents, the Commission's findings could not have been influenced by them (12). The right to be heard of Philips and LGE has thus not been violated through granting both addressees of the SSO only limited access to the file.

2.   Extensions of time limit for replies to the SSO

Each of the two parties was afforded a period of four weeks for comments on the SSO. Both requested an extension and having been refused the prolongation by DG Competition referred their requests to me. Recognising some of the arguments of the parties and taking into account their commitments as to the timing of the oral hearing, I extended the deadline by two weeks. LGE and Philips responded in due time.

3.   Letter of facts concerning individuals participating in meetings

On 5 July 2012, following the adoption of the SSO, the Commission informed all other parties about the updated version of a certain Annex 1 which identifies the individuals representing the LGE, [Philips/LGE joint venture] and Philips groups in their contacts with competitors as described in the SO. The original deadline to reply of two weeks was extended by another two weeks for Panasonic and MTPD upon their request. All parties replied in due time.

D.   Supplementary oral hearing

In their replies to the SSO, LGE and Philips requested a supplementary oral hearing which focused on the modified and additional objections raised against these two parties.

A few days before the Commission is supposed to decide on this case, Toshiba requested access to the recording as well as to submissions of MTPD and Panasonic relevant for the calculation of the fine potentially to be imposed on MTPD. It furthermore asked to be heard on the new start date for the alleged infringement of which it had learned in the state-of-play meeting. I consider these partly belated requests as unfounded. There has been no new evidence on which Toshiba has a right to be heard on. Partly Toshiba is requesting information from the Commission, access to which it could have ensured itself.

E.   Issues regarding the exercise of procedural rights

Philips and LGE criticised in their written comments and oral presentations the Commission, inter alia, for having breached their rights of defence and accuse it of unequal treatment.

1.   Breach of rights of defence

LGE and Philips claimed that the Commission breached their rights of defence because it did not notify the SO and SSO to their former joint venture [Philips/LGE joint venture]. The latter company acquired the CDT and CPT businesses of LGE and Philips [...]. Without being prosecuted [Philips/LGE joint venture] had no incentive to assist LGE and Philips in verifying the correctness of the facts used against them and adducing circumstances which could exonerate them from the alleged infringements or qualify as mitigating factors.

I consider the claim to be unfounded for the following reasons:

LGE and Philips have been granted access to file and, in particular, [Philips/LGE joint venture]'s responses to the Commission's requests for information. They have thus been given the opportunity to verify the evidence underlying the objections and to invoke evidence in the file which was not consistent with the inferences made by the Commission. Neither of the two parties alleges that the Commission's investigation has not been complete and impartial also in relation to [Philips/LGE joint venture].

It is true that incentives may be different when an addressee replies to the SO and not only to a request for information. However, it falls within one undertaking on the legal persons belonging to the undertaking to organise their defence as they consider it necessary. LGE, Philips and [Philips/LGE joint venture] are thus themselves responsible for taking the appropriate measures to react to the SO and SSO. It is not for the Commission to take any steps to facilitate or to organise their defence, as both parties seem to suggest when they criticise the Commission for not having sent the SO and SSO to their joint venture [Philips/LGE joint venture].

It is also true that [Philips/LGE joint venture] has been declared bankrupt and its [officer] refused to assist LGE in its defence when asked to do so. However, this fact does not relieve LGE and Philips from their responsibility and charge the Commission instead. They could have secured themselves access to [Philips/LGE joint venture]'s files and employees, for instance, through contractual means when transferring their respective businesses to [Philips/LGE joint venture]. Furthermore, addressing the SO and SSO to [Philips/LGE joint venture] would not necessarily have improved LGE's and Philips' situation. Recipients of the SO and SSO are not obliged to make use of their rights of defence.

2.   Unequal treatment

LGE and Philips furthermore submit that the Commission discriminated against them in two regards. It allegedly did neither equally accuse all companies directly involved in the suspected infringement, nor equally prosecute all parent companies the subsidiaries of which received the SO or SSO.

The Commission is obliged to treat all parties in similar situations equally, unless there is an objective justification to treat them differently (13). The reasons for not prosecuting through this proceeding certain undertakings are based on the facts set out in the draft decision. To the extent undertakings in a similar situation are indeed treated differently the treatment appears to be sufficiently justified.

F.   Letter on the calculation of the sales value

The Commission sent all parties a letter on 24 August 2011 announcing that it may use the data provided by them in reply to a simple request for information as the basis for calculating the value of sales for determining the fine. It furthermore announced to include certain indirect sales to the EEA in the calculation of a possible fine. The parties were given two weeks for any observations. All parties responded in time.

I consider that the Commission's letter of 24 August 2011 taken together with the request for information allowed the parties to understand and to comment on the facts and the methodology the Commission intends to use for the determination of the fines. The letter addressed in my view also LGE's complaint of 27 July 2011 that it has not been properly heard on the calculation of the fine.

THE DRAFT DECISION

After having heard the parties in writing and orally, the Commission revised the duration of the infringement for some parties. As a result, the duration of the direct participation of one party in the CPT cartel was shortened by 23 months. Furthermore, the liability for the participation of one joint venture was reduced by 2 months in the CDT cartel and 10 months in the CPT cartel to better take into account its entry into liquidation.

CONCLUDING REMARK

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

Overall, I find that all participants have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this proceeding.

Brussels, 3 December 2012.

Michael ALBERS

---

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

1

(2)  Parts of this text have been edited to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed. Those parts are replaced by a non-confidential summary in square brackets or are shown as [...].

2

(3)  Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co. Ltd, Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. and CPTF Optronics Co. Ltd.

3

(4)  Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI Germany GmbH and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

4

(5)  Royal Philips Electronics NV.

5

(6)  LG Electronics Inc., [...].

6

(7)  Toshiba Corporation and [...].

7

(8)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

8

(9)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

9

(10)  On 1 July 2001, LGE and Philips merged their respective CRT businesses into a joint venture, at the head of which was the company [Philips/LGE joint venture company], forming the [Philips/LGE joint venture] Group.

10

(11)  See OJ C 308, 20.10.2011, p. 6, paragraph 112.

11

(12)  See Case C-407/08 P Knauf Gips [2010] ECR I-06375, paragraph 23 et seq.

12

Knauf Gips

(13)  Case T-24/05 Alliance One International, Inc. [2010] ECR II-05329, paragraphs 157 and 218.

13

Alliance One International, Inc.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/13

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 5 December 2012

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

(Case COMP/39.437 — TV and computer monitor tubes)

(notified under document C(2012) 8839)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 303/07

On 5 December 2012, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | On 5 December 2012, the European Commission adopted a decision relating to two separate infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the sector of cathode ray tubes (‘CRT’). By these infringements, the addressees of the decision colluded on prices, market shares, customers and output as well as exchanged confidential information and monitored implementation of the collusive arrangements. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 5 December 2012, the European Commission adopted a decision relating to two separate infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the sector of cathode ray tubes (‘CRT’). By these infringements, the addressees of the decision colluded on prices, market shares, customers and output as well as exchanged confidential information and monitored implementation of the collusive arrangements.

| (2) | The decision was addressed to the following legal entities: Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd. (‘Chunghwa’); Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH (‘Samsung SDI’); Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (‘Philips’); LG Electronics, Inc (‘LGE’); Panasonic Corporation (‘Panasonic’); Toshiba Corporation (‘Toshiba’); MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (‘MTPD’); Technicolor SA (‘Technicolor’). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The decision was addressed to the following legal entities: Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd. (‘Chunghwa’); Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH (‘Samsung SDI’); Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (‘Philips’); LG Electronics, Inc (‘LGE’); Panasonic Corporation (‘Panasonic’); Toshiba Corporation (‘Toshiba’); MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (‘MTPD’); Technicolor SA (‘Technicolor’).

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   The product concerned

| (3) | The product concerned, CRT, is an evacuated glass envelope containing an electron gun and a fluorescent screen. There are two distinct types of CRTs that were covered respectively in the two separate infringements: (i) colour display tubes (CDTs) used in computer monitors and (ii) colour picture tubes (CPTs) used for colour televisions. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The product concerned, CRT, is an evacuated glass envelope containing an electron gun and a fluorescent screen. There are two distinct types of CRTs that were covered respectively in the two separate infringements: (i) colour display tubes (CDTs) used in computer monitors and (ii) colour picture tubes (CPTs) used for colour televisions.

| (4) | Since early 2000's, the CRT technology was gradually replaced by alternative techniques such as LCD and plasma displays. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Since early 2000's, the CRT technology was gradually replaced by alternative techniques such as LCD and plasma displays.

2.2.   Procedure

| (5) | Following the immunity application of Chunghwa under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission carried out inspections in November 2007. Subsequently, the Commission received leniency applications from Samsung SDI, Panasonic (together with MTPD), Philips and Technicolor. In addition, several requests for information were addressed to the parties. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Following the immunity application of Chunghwa under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission carried out inspections in November 2007. Subsequently, the Commission received leniency applications from Samsung SDI, Panasonic (together with MTPD), Philips and Technicolor. In addition, several requests for information were addressed to the parties.

| (6) | On 23 November 2009, the Commission adopted a statement of objections. An oral hearing was held on 26 and 27 May 2010. On 2 December 2010, the Commission issued a letter of facts to Panasonic, MTPD and Toshiba regarding the decisive influence of parent companies over MTPD. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 23 November 2009, the Commission adopted a statement of objections. An oral hearing was held on 26 and 27 May 2010. On 2 December 2010, the Commission issued a letter of facts to Panasonic, MTPD and Toshiba regarding the decisive influence of parent companies over MTPD.

| (7) | On 1 June 2012, the Commission adopted supplementary statements of objections addressed to Philips and to LGE concerning liability. An oral hearing of these parties was held on 6 September 2012. On 5 July 2012 the Commission issued a letter of facts to all the addressees of the 23 November 2009 statement of objections regarding participants in the cartel contacts from Philips group, LGE group and the Philips/LGE joint venture group. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 1 June 2012, the Commission adopted supplementary statements of objections addressed to Philips and to LGE concerning liability. An oral hearing of these parties was held on 6 September 2012. On 5 July 2012 the Commission issued a letter of facts to all the addressees of the 23 November 2009 statement of objections regarding participants in the cartel contacts from Philips group, LGE group and the Philips/LGE joint venture group.

| (8) | The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions issued a favourable opinion on 19 November 2012 and 3 December 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions issued a favourable opinion on 19 November 2012 and 3 December 2012.

2.3.   Summary of the infringements

| (9) | Overall, the CDT cartel lasted from October 1996 until March 2006 and the CPT cartel from December 1997 until November 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Overall, the CDT cartel lasted from October 1996 until March 2006 and the CPT cartel from December 1997 until November 2006.

| (10) | The addressees of the decision for the CDT cartel fixed prices, allocated market shares and customers and restricted output. The addressees of the decision for the CPT cartel fixed prices, allocated market shares and restricted output. The price fixing, market sharing and output restrictions were also subject to regular monitoring in both cartels and, in the case of the CDT cartel, at times the capacity restrictions were also audited with plant visits. The addressees also engaged in exchanges of commercially sensitive information in both cartels. In the CPT cartel, the addressees also attempted to maintain a price gap between identical products marketed in Europe and Asia. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The addressees of the decision for the CDT cartel fixed prices, allocated market shares and customers and restricted output. The addressees of the decision for the CPT cartel fixed prices, allocated market shares and restricted output. The price fixing, market sharing and output restrictions were also subject to regular monitoring in both cartels and, in the case of the CDT cartel, at times the capacity restrictions were also audited with plant visits. The addressees also engaged in exchanges of commercially sensitive information in both cartels. In the CPT cartel, the addressees also attempted to maintain a price gap between identical products marketed in Europe and Asia.

| (11) | The two cartels were highly organised. There were regular multilateral meetings involving different corporate levels of the addressees up to the executive level. The multilateral meetings were complemented by bilateral meetings and other exchanges. Originally, CDTs and CPTs were discussed in the same cartel contacts, but soon a division between CDT and CPT related cartel contacts emerged. Focus of the cartel contacts evolved over time following the development in the sector for example as the emphasis in the demand was moving to larger dimension CRTs. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The two cartels were highly organised. There were regular multilateral meetings involving different corporate levels of the addressees up to the executive level. The multilateral meetings were complemented by bilateral meetings and other exchanges. Originally, CDTs and CPTs were discussed in the same cartel contacts, but soon a division between CDT and CPT related cartel contacts emerged. Focus of the cartel contacts evolved over time following the development in the sector for example as the emphasis in the demand was moving to larger dimension CRTs.

| (12) | In the CDT cartel the cartel, contacts took place mainly in Asia whereas in the CPT cartel, there were cartel contacts both in Asia and in Europe. As of 1999, the CPT cartel contacts started to be organised more frequently also in Europe to complement the cartel meetings that had started in Asia. In the CPT cartel the arrangements reached in the Asian and European cartel, contacts were interconnected. The European meetings focused more specifically on Europe and the Asian cartel contacts covered more clearly the worldwide level. However, cartel contacts concerning Europe clearly took place both in Asia and in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In the CDT cartel the cartel, contacts took place mainly in Asia whereas in the CPT cartel, there were cartel contacts both in Asia and in Europe. As of 1999, the CPT cartel contacts started to be organised more frequently also in Europe to complement the cartel meetings that had started in Asia. In the CPT cartel the arrangements reached in the Asian and European cartel, contacts were interconnected. The European meetings focused more specifically on Europe and the Asian cartel contacts covered more clearly the worldwide level. However, cartel contacts concerning Europe clearly took place both in Asia and in Europe.

2.4.   Addressees

| (13) | The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in a single and continuous complex of agreements and concerted practices in the sector of colour display tubes used in computer monitors:






  (a) | Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., from 24 October 1996 until 14 March 2006; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(13)

The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in a single and continuous complex of agreements and concerted practices in the sector of colour display tubes used in computer monitors:

(a)

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., from 24 October 1996 until 14 March 2006;

| (b) | Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, from 23 November 1996 until 14 March 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, from 23 November 1996 until 14 March 2006;

| (c) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, from 28 January 1997 until 30 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, from 28 January 1997 until 30 January 2006;

| (d) | LG Electronics, Inc., from 24 October 1996 until 30 January 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

LG Electronics, Inc., from 24 October 1996 until 30 January 2006.

| (14) | The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in a single and continuous complex of agreements and concerted practices in the sector of colour picture tubes used for colour televisions:






  (a) | Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., from 3 December 1997 until 6 December 2005; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(14)

The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in a single and continuous complex of agreements and concerted practices in the sector of colour picture tubes used for colour televisions:

(a)

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., from 3 December 1997 until 6 December 2005;

| (b) | Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH, from 3 December 1997 until 15 November 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH, from 3 December 1997 until 15 November 2006;

| (c) | Panasonic Corporation, from 15 July 1999 until 12 June 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Panasonic Corporation, from 15 July 1999 until 12 June 2006;

| (d) | Toshiba Corporation, from 16 May 2000 until 12 June 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Toshiba Corporation, from 16 May 2000 until 12 June 2006;

| (e) | MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., from 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., from 1 April 2003 until 12 June 2006;

| (f) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, from 21 September 1999 until 30 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, from 21 September 1999 until 30 January 2006;

| (g) | LG Electronics, Inc., from 3 December 1997 until 30 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

LG Electronics, Inc., from 3 December 1997 until 30 January 2006;

| (h) | Technicolor SA, from 25 March 1999 until 19 September 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Technicolor SA, from 25 March 1999 until 19 September 2005.

2.5.   Remedies

| (15) | The decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

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

2.5.1.   Basic amount of the fine

| (16) | The basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the undertakings concerned is to be set by reference to the relevant value of the undertakings' sales of goods or services to which the infringement related in the relevant geographic area in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the undertakings concerned is to be set by reference to the relevant value of the undertakings' sales of goods or services to which the infringement related in the relevant geographic area in the EEA.

| (17) | For the purpose of establishing the value of sales in this case, the relevant EEA turnover consists of those sales where the first ‘real’ sale of CDT or CPT — as such or integrated in a final computer or colour television product — was made into the EEA during the period of the infringement. This includes both direct EEA sales (that is CDTs or CPTs directly sold to customers in the EEA) and direct EEA sales through transformed products (that is CDTs or CPTs incorporated intra-group into a final computer monitor or colour television and subsequently sold to customers in the EEA) by one of the addressees of the decision or their joint venture. Sales of CDTs and CPTs to intra-group customers were part of the cartel discussions in this case and are therefore included in the value of sales. For the calculation of the respective value of sales, the value of the CDTs and CPTs are included in so far as the transformed products are sold by the cartelist in the EEA to unrelated customers. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

For the purpose of establishing the value of sales in this case, the relevant EEA turnover consists of those sales where the first ‘real’ sale of CDT or CPT — as such or integrated in a final computer or colour television product — was made into the EEA during the period of the infringement. This includes both direct EEA sales (that is CDTs or CPTs directly sold to customers in the EEA) and direct EEA sales through transformed products (that is CDTs or CPTs incorporated intra-group into a final computer monitor or colour television and subsequently sold to customers in the EEA) by one of the addressees of the decision or their joint venture. Sales of CDTs and CPTs to intra-group customers were part of the cartel discussions in this case and are therefore included in the value of sales. For the calculation of the respective value of sales, the value of the CDTs and CPTs are included in so far as the transformed products are sold by the cartelist in the EEA to unrelated customers.

| (18) | In order to identify the relevant value of sales, the Commission takes into account sales of products which were delivered in the EEA. By doing this, a strong nexus with the EEA is established, thereby reflecting the economic importance of the infringement in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

In order to identify the relevant value of sales, the Commission takes into account sales of products which were delivered in the EEA. By doing this, a strong nexus with the EEA is established, thereby reflecting the economic importance of the infringement in the EEA.

| (19) | In this case, it is appropriate to take the average annual value of sales (based on the actual sales over the entire duration of the infringement) as the basis for the ‘value of sales’ calculation, having regard to the significant decrease of the sales for all undertakings between the beginning and the end of the infringement and to the considerable variation of the value of sales from one year to the next. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

In this case, it is appropriate to take the average annual value of sales (based on the actual sales over the entire duration of the infringement) as the basis for the ‘value of sales’ calculation, having regard to the significant decrease of the sales for all undertakings between the beginning and the end of the infringement and to the considerable variation of the value of sales from one year to the next.

| (20) | Considering the nature of the infringements, their geographical scope and their implementation, the percentage for the variable amount of the fine and the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 19 % of the value of sales for the CDT cartel and 18 % of the value of sales for the CPT cartel for all the undertakings addressed. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Considering the nature of the infringements, their geographical scope and their implementation, the percentage for the variable amount of the fine and the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 19 % of the value of sales for the CDT cartel and 18 % of the value of sales for the CPT cartel for all the undertakings addressed.

| (21) | LGE participated directly and through subsidiaries and Philips through subsidiaries in the CPT and CDT cartels until the end of June 2001, and thereafter both continued participation through the Philips/LGE joint venture. Panasonic participated directly and through subsidiaries and Toshiba directly in the CPT cartel until the end of March 2003, and thereafter both continued participation through the joint venture MTPD. Consequently, separate additional amounts are imposed only on the respective joint venture parent companies, Philips, LGE, Panasonic and Toshiba. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

LGE participated directly and through subsidiaries and Philips through subsidiaries in the CPT and CDT cartels until the end of June 2001, and thereafter both continued participation through the Philips/LGE joint venture. Panasonic participated directly and through subsidiaries and Toshiba directly in the CPT cartel until the end of March 2003, and thereafter both continued participation through the joint venture MTPD. Consequently, separate additional amounts are imposed only on the respective joint venture parent companies, Philips, LGE, Panasonic and Toshiba.

| (22) | In this case, the Commission takes into account the actual duration of participation in the infringements of the undertakings involved in this case on a rounded down monthly and pro rata basis to take fully into account the duration of the participation for each undertaking, which leads to the following multipliers for duration of participation: |
| --- | --- |

(22)

In this case, the Commission takes into account the actual duration of participation in the infringements of the undertakings involved in this case on a rounded down monthly and pro rata basis to take fully into account the duration of the participation for each undertaking, which leads to the following multipliers for duration of participation:

A.   CDT cartel

| (a) | Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. and CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally — 9,33; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. and CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally — 9,33;

| (b) | Samsung SDI Co., Ltd, and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, jointly and severally — 9,25; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd, and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, jointly and severally — 9,25;

| (c) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,41; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,41;

| (d) | LG Electronics, Inc., for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,66; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

LG Electronics, Inc., for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,66;

| (e) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc, for the period of the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,5. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc, for the period of the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,5.

B.   CPT cartel

| (a) | Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. and CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally — 8; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. and CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally — 8;

| (b) | Samsung SDI Co., Ltd, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH, and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, jointly and severally — 8,91; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH, and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, jointly and severally — 8,91;

| (c) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 1,75; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 1,75;

| (d) | LG Electronics, Inc., for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 3,5; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

LG Electronics, Inc., for the period prior to the Philips/LGE joint venture — 3,5;

| (e) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc, for the period of the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,5; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc, for the period of the Philips/LGE joint venture — 4,5;

| (f) | Technicolor SA — 6,41; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Technicolor SA — 6,41;

| (g) | Panasonic Corporation, for the period prior to the joint venture MTPD — 3,66; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Panasonic Corporation, for the period prior to the joint venture MTPD — 3,66;

| (h) | Toshiba Corporation, for the period prior to the joint venture MTPD — 2,83; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Toshiba Corporation, for the period prior to the joint venture MTPD — 2,83;

| (i) | Panasonic Corporation, Toshiba Corporation and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd, for the period of the joint venture MTPD — 3,16. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Panasonic Corporation, Toshiba Corporation and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd, for the period of the joint venture MTPD — 3,16.

2.5.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

| (23) | There are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

There are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances in this case.

2.5.3.   Specific increase for deterrence

| (24) | In this case, a deterrence multiplier of the fines to be imposed of 1,1 is applied to Toshiba, and of 1,2 is applied to Panasonic and MTPD. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

In this case, a deterrence multiplier of the fines to be imposed of 1,1 is applied to Toshiba, and of 1,2 is applied to Panasonic and MTPD.

2.5.4.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

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

(25)

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

2.5.5.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

| (26) | Chunghwa was the first undertaking to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice. The fine to be imposed was reduced by 100 % for both CDT and CPT cartels. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Chunghwa was the first undertaking to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice. The fine to be imposed was reduced by 100 % for both CDT and CPT cartels.

| (27) | Samsung SDI is granted a 40 % reduction of the fines that would otherwise have been imposed on it both regarding the CDT and the CPT cartel. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

Samsung SDI is granted a 40 % reduction of the fines that would otherwise have been imposed on it both regarding the CDT and the CPT cartel.

| (28) | Philips is granted a 30 % reduction of the fines that would otherwise have been imposed on it both regarding the CDT and the CPT cartel. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Philips is granted a 30 % reduction of the fines that would otherwise have been imposed on it both regarding the CDT and the CPT cartel.

| (29) | Technicolor is granted a 10 % reduction of the fines that would otherwise have been imposed on it regarding the CPT cartel. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Technicolor is granted a 10 % reduction of the fines that would otherwise have been imposed on it regarding the CPT cartel.

| (30) | The Commission concluded that Panasonic and MTPD did not qualify for a reduction of fines. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The Commission concluded that Panasonic and MTPD did not qualify for a reduction of fines.

2.5.6.   Inability to pay

| (31) | One undertaking invoked its inability to pay under point 35 of the 2006 Fines Guidelines. The Commission considered this claim and carefully analysed the financial situation of the undertaking and the specific social and economic context. As a result of the analysis, the Commission granted a reduction of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

One undertaking invoked its inability to pay under point 35 of the 2006 Fines Guidelines. The Commission considered this claim and carefully analysed the financial situation of the undertaking and the specific social and economic context. As a result of the analysis, the Commission granted a reduction of the fine.

3.   FINES IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

| (32) | For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the sector of colour display tubes used in computer monitors, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(32)

For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the sector of colour display tubes used in computer monitors, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0;

| (b) | Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, jointly and severally liable: EUR 69 418 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, jointly and severally liable: EUR 69 418 000;

| (c) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV: EUR 73 185 000; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV: EUR 73 185 000;

| (d) | LG Electronics, Inc.: EUR 116 536 000; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

LG Electronics, Inc.: EUR 116 536 000;

| (e) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 69 048 000. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 69 048 000.

| (33) | For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the sector of colour picture tubes used for colour televisions, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(33)

For the single and continuous infringement in relation to the sector of colour picture tubes used for colour televisions, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Chunghwa Picture Tubes Co., Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., CPTF Optronics Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0;

| (b) | Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 81 424 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Berhad, Samsung SDI Germany GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 81 424 000;

| (c) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV: EUR 240 171 000; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV: EUR 240 171 000;

| (d) | LG Electronics, Inc.: EUR 179 061 000; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

LG Electronics, Inc.: EUR 179 061 000;

| (e) | Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 322 892 000; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and LG Electronics, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 322 892 000;

| (f) | Panasonic Corporation: EUR 157 478 000; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Panasonic Corporation: EUR 157 478 000;

| (g) | Toshiba Corporation: EUR 28 048 000; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Toshiba Corporation: EUR 28 048 000;

| (h) | Panasonic Corporation, Toshiba Corporation and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 86 738 000; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Panasonic Corporation, Toshiba Corporation and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 86 738 000;

| (i) | Panasonic Corporation and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 7 885 000; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Panasonic Corporation and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd., jointly and severally liable: EUR 7 885 000;

| (j) | Technicolor SA: EUR 38 631 000. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Technicolor SA: EUR 38 631 000.

---

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

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

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/17

---

Notice from the Ministry of the Environment of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

2013/C 303/08

Pursuant to Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the Ministry of Economic Development hereby announces the issuing of the Ministerial Decree of 9 August 2013 on the reorganisation of ‘Marine area E’ in the Balearic Sea.

Within 3 months of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, interested parties may under the rules in force submit applications for authorisation for oil and gas prospection and exploration in the reorganised area according to the geographical coordinates listed below.

The legal provisions on granting of mining rights are specified more fully in the following legislation:

Law No 613 of 21 July 1967; Law No 9 of 9 January 1991; Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996; Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and Directorial Decree of 22 March 2011.

The Ministry of Economic Development — Department for Energy, Directorate-General for Mineral and Energy Resources — is the authority competent for granting mining rights.

Applications for authorisations for prospection and exploration must be sent to the following address:

| Ministero dello sviluppo economico |
| --- |
| Dipartimento per l’energia |
| Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche |
| Divisione VI |
| Via Molise 2 |
| 00187 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |

Ministero dello sviluppo economico

Dipartimento per l’energia

Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche

Divisione VI

Via Molise 2

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

The application may also be submitted by email to the following address: ene.rme.div6@pec.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it; the requisite documents should be submitted in electronic format together with the digital signature of a legal representative of the applicant.

The boundary of ‘Marine area E’ in which new applications may be made is defined by the following geographical coordinates of the triangulation points listed in Annex A, which forms an integral part of the decree, along with the map in Annex B, which is taken from Navigational Chart No 432, ‘Dal Mar Balearico al Mar Tirreno’, published by the Naval Hydrographic Institute to a scale of 1:1 000 000.

---

ANNEX A

Coordinates of ‘Marine area E’

| Point | Longitude east of Greenwich | Latitude north | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 5°56′,6 | 41°09′ | Intersection between the Italy–Spain line, points A and B, and the 41°09′ parallel |
| 2 | 6°00′ | 41°09′ | |
| 3 | 6°00′ | 41°18′ | |
| 4 | 6°10′ | 41°18′ | |
| 5 | 6°10′ | 41°22′ | |
| 6 | 6°15′ | 41°22′ | |
| 7 | 6°15′ | 41°25′ | |
| 8 | 6°20′ | 41°25′ | |
| 9 | 6°20′ | 41°28′ | |
| 10 | 6°28′ | 41°28′ | |
| 11 | 6°28′ | 41°32′ | |
| 12 | 6°35′ | 41°32′ | |
| 13 | 6°35′ | 41°35′ | |
| 14 | 6°39′ | 41°35′ | |
| 15 | 6°39′ | 41°37′ | |
| 16 | 6°45′ | 41°37′ | |
| 17 | 6°45′ | 41°40′ | |
| 18 | 6°50′ | 41°40′ | |
| 19 | 6°50′ | 41°42′ | |
| 20 | 7°08′ | 41°42′ | |
| 21 | 7°08′ | 41°40′ | |
| 22 | 7°15′ | 41°40′ | |
| 23 | 7°15′ | 41°39′ | |
| 24 | 7°18′ | 41°39′ | |
| 25 | 7°18′ | 41°37′ | |
| 26 | 7°25′ | 41°37′ | |
| 27 | 7°25′ | 41°35′ | |
| 28 | 7°31′ | 41°35′ | |
| 29 | 7°31′ | 41°34′ | |
| 30 | 7°36′ | 41°34′ | |
| 31 | 7°36′ | 40°05′ | |
| 32 | 6°16′,68 | 40°05′ | Intersection between the 40°05′ parallel and the Italy–Spain line, between points G and F |
| 33 | 6°11′,9 | 40°21′,5 | Point F of the Italy–Spain line |
| 34 | 6°10′,1 | 40°27′,3 | Point E of the Italy–Spain line |
| 35 | 6°08′,9 | 40°31′,7 | Point D of the Italy–Spain line |
| 36 | 6°07′,8 | 40°35′,7 | Point C of the Italy–Spain line |
| 37 | 5°57′,6 | 41°06′,5 | Point B of the Italy–Spain line |

Point

Longitude east of Greenwich

Latitude north

1

5°56′,6

41°09′

Intersection between the Italy–Spain line, points A and B, and the 41°09′ parallel

2

6°00′

41°09′

3

6°00′

41°18′

4

6°10′

41°18′

5

6°10′

41°22′

6

6°15′

41°22′

7

6°15′

41°25′

8

6°20′

41°25′

9

6°20′

41°28′

10

6°28′

41°28′

11

6°28′

41°32′

12

6°35′

41°32′

13

6°35′

41°35′

14

6°39′

41°35′

15

6°39′

41°37′

16

6°45′

41°37′

17

6°45′

41°40′

18

6°50′

41°40′

19

6°50′

41°42′

20

7°08′

41°42′

21

7°08′

41°40′

22

7°15′

41°40′

23

7°15′

41°39′

24

7°18′

41°39′

25

7°18′

41°37′

26

7°25′

41°37′

27

7°25′

41°35′

28

7°31′

41°35′

29

7°31′

41°34′

30

7°36′

41°34′

31

7°36′

40°05′

32

6°16′,68

40°05′

Intersection between the 40°05′ parallel and the Italy–Spain line, between points G and F

33

6°11′,9

40°21′,5

Point F of the Italy–Spain line

34

6°10′,1

40°27′,3

Point E of the Italy–Spain line

35

6°08′,9

40°31′,7

Point D of the Italy–Spain line

36

6°07′,8

40°35′,7

Point C of the Italy–Spain line

37

5°57′,6

41°06′,5

Point B of the Italy–Spain line

---

ANNEX B

Map of the reorganisation of ‘Marine Area E’ — cartographic basis: taken from Navigational Chart No 432, ‘Dal Mar Balearico al Mar Tirreno’, published by the Naval Hydrographic Institute

Image

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/21

---

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

2013/C 303/09

The Ministry of Economic Development has received an application from Global Petroleum Limited for a hydrocarbon prospecting licence, referred to as ‘d 82 F.R-.GP’, in respect of an area located in area F (the Adriatic Sea), delimited by meridian and parallel arcs, which connect the points defined below by their geographical coordinates:

| Point | Geographical coordinates |
| --- | --- |
| Longitude E Greenwich | Latitude N |
| a | 17°17′ | 41°54′ |
| b | Intersection of the meridian 41°54′ with the boundary of area F |
| c | Intersection between the boundaries of area F and meridian 17°27′ |
| d | 17°27′ | 41°36′ |
| e | 17°36′ | 41°36′ |
| f | 17°36′ | 41°30′ |
| g | 17°17′ | 41°30′ |

Point

Geographical coordinates

Longitude E Greenwich

Latitude N

a

17°17′

41°54′

b

Intersection of the meridian 41°54′ with the boundary of area F

c

Intersection between the boundaries of area F and meridian 17°27′

d

17°27′

41°36′

e

17°36′

41°36′

f

17°36′

41°30′

g

17°17′

41°30′

The boundaries of the licence application from point ‘b’ to point ‘c’ coincide with the border of area F.

The above coordinates have been plotted using the nautical map of the Italian coast drawn up by the Italian Navy’s Hydrographic Institute on a scale of 1:250 000 — Map No 921.

On the basis of this description of the boundaries, the surface area is 745,70 km2.

In accordance with the abovementioned Directive, Article 4 of Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996, the Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and Directorial Decree of 22 March 2011, the Ministry of Economic Development must publish a notice to enable other interested persons to submit applications for hydrocarbon prospecting licences for the same area described above.

The competent authority to grant the relevant licence is Division VI of the Directorate-General for Mineral and Energy Resources of the Department of Energy at the Ministry of Economic Development.

The rules for granting the mineralogical licence are laid down in the following provisions:

Law No 613 of 21 July 1967; Law No 9 of 9 January 1991; Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996; Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and Director's Order of 22 March 2011.

The time limit for submitting applications is three months after publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

The address to which applications must be submitted is:

| Ministero dello sviluppo economico |
| --- |
| Dipartimento per l’energia |
| Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche |
| Divisione VI |
| Via Molise 2 |
| 00187 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |

Ministero dello sviluppo economico

Dipartimento per l’energia

Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche

Divisione VI

Via Molise 2

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

The application may also be submitted by e-mail to the following address: ene.rme.div6@pec.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it; the requisite documents should be submitted in electronic format together with the digital signature of a legal representative of the applicant.

In accordance with point 2 of Annex A to Prime Ministerial Decree No 22 of 22 December 2010, the overall duration of the procedure for the granting of prospecting licences must not exceed 180 days.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/23

---

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

2013/C 303/10

The Ministry of Economic Development has received an application from Global Petroleum Limited for a hydrocarbon prospecting licence, referred to as ‘d 83 F.R-.GP’, in respect of an area located in area F (the Adriatic Sea), delimited by meridian and parallel arcs, which connect the points defined below by their geographical coordinates:

| Point | Geographical coordinates |
| --- | --- |
| Longitude E Greenwich | Latitude N |
| a | Intersection of the meridian 18°00′ with the boundary of area F |
| b | Intersection between the boundaries of area F and meridian 18°13′ |
| c | 18°13′ | 41°28′ |
| d | 18°16′ | 41°28′ |
| e | 18°16′ | 41°26′ |
| f | 18°19′ | 41°26′ |
| g | 18°19′ | 41°23′ |
| h | 18°22′ | 41°23′ |
| i | 18°22′ | 41°15′ |
| l | 18°12′ | 41°15′ |
| m | 18°12′ | 41°17′ |
| n | 18°09′ | 41°17′ |
| o | 18°09′ | 41°19′ |
| p | 18°07′ | 41°19′ |
| q | 18°07′ | 41°20′ |
| r | 18°04′ | 41°20′ |
| s | 18°04′ | 41°22′ |
| t | 18°00′ | 41°22′ |

Point

Geographical coordinates

Longitude E Greenwich

Latitude N

a

Intersection of the meridian 18°00′ with the boundary of area F

b

Intersection between the boundaries of area F and meridian 18°13′

c

18°13′

41°28′

d

18°16′

41°28′

e

18°16′

41°26′

f

18°19′

41°26′

g

18°19′

41°23′

h

18°22′

41°23′

i

18°22′

41°15′

l

18°12′

41°15′

m

18°12′

41°17′

n

18°09′

41°17′

o

18°09′

41°19′

p

18°07′

41°19′

q

18°07′

41°20′

r

18°04′

41°20′

s

18°04′

41°22′

t

18°00′

41°22′

The boundaries of the licence application from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’ coincide with the border of area F.

The above coordinates have been plotted using the nautical map of the Italian coast drawn up by the Italian Navy’s Hydrographic Institute on a scale of 1:250 000 — Map No 921.

On the basis of this description of the boundaries, the surface area is 745,30 km2.

In accordance with the abovementioned Directive, Article 4 of Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996, the Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and Directorial Decree of 22 March 2011, the Ministry of Economic Development must publish a notice to enable other interested persons to submit applications for hydrocarbon prospecting licences for the same area described above.

The competent authority to grant the relevant licence is Division VI of the Directorate-General for Mineral and Energy Resources of the Department of Energy at the Ministry of Economic Development.

The rules for granting the mineralogical licence are laid down in the following provisions:

Law No 613 of 21 July 1967; Law No 9 of 9 January 1991; Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996; Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and Director's Order of 22 March 2011.

The time limit for submitting applications is three months after publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

The address to which applications must be submitted is:

| Ministero dello sviluppo economico |
| --- |
| Dipartimento per l’energia |
| Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche |
| Divisione VI |
| Via Molise 2 |
| 00187 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |

Ministero dello sviluppo economico

Dipartimento per l’energia

Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche

Divisione VI

Via Molise 2

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

The application may also be submitted by e-mail to the following address: ene.rme.div6@pec.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it; the requisite documents should be submitted in electronic format together with the digital signature of a legal representative of the applicant.

---

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/25

---

Notice from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Italian Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

2013/C 303/11

The Ministry of Economic Development has received an application from Petroceltic Italia Srl and Edison SpA for a hydrocarbon prospecting licence, referred to as ‘d 84 F.R-.EL’, in respect of an area located in area F (the Adriatic Sea and the Straits of Otranto), delimited by meridian and parallel arcs, which connect the points defined below by their geographical coordinates:

| Point | Geographical coordinates |
| --- | --- |
| Longitude E Greenwich | Latitude N |
| a | 18°42′ | 39°49′ |
| b | 18°53′ | 39°49′ |
| c | 18°53′ | 39°46′ |
| d | 18°54′ | 39°46′ |
| e | 18°54′ | 39°45′ |
| f | Intersection of parallel 39°45′ with the boundary of area F |
| g | Intersection between the boundaries of area F and parallel 39°29′ |
| h | 18°49′ | 39°29′ |
| i | 18°49′ | 39°30′ |
| l | 18°40′ | 39°30′ |
| m | 18°40′ | 39°43′ |
| n | 18°41′ | 39°43′ |
| o | 18°41′ | 39°44′ |
| p | 18°42′ | 39°44′ |

Point

Geographical coordinates

Longitude E Greenwich

Latitude N

a

18°42′

39°49′

b

18°53′

39°49′

c

18°53′

39°46′

d

18°54′

39°46′

e

18°54′

39°45′

f

Intersection of parallel 39°45′ with the boundary of area F

g

Intersection between the boundaries of area F and parallel 39°29′

h

18°49′

39°29′

i

18°49′

39°30′

l

18°40′

39°30′

m

18°40′

39°43′

n

18°41′

39°43′

o

18°41′

39°44′

p

18°42′

39°44′

The boundaries of the licence application from point ‘f’ to point ‘g’ coincide with the border of area F.

The above coordinates have been plotted using the nautical map of the Italian coast drawn up by the Italian Navy’s Hydrographic Institute on a scale of 1:250 000 — Map No 920.

On the basis of this description of the boundaries, the surface area is 729,20 km2.

In accordance with the abovementioned Directive, Article 4 of Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996, the Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and Directorial Decree of 22 March 2011, the Ministry of Economic Development must publish a notice to enable other interested persons to submit applications for hydrocarbon prospecting licences for the same area described above.

The competent authority to grant the relevant licence is Division VI of the Directorate-General for Mineral and Energy Resources of the Department of Energy at the Ministry of Economic Development.

The rules for granting the mineralogical licence are laid down in the following provisions:

Law No 613 of 21 July 1967; Law No 9 of 9 January 1991; Legislative Decree No 625 of 25 November 1996; Ministerial Decree of 4 March 2011 and Director's Order of 22 March 2011.

The time limit for submitting applications is three months after publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

The address to which applications must be submitted is:

| Ministero dello sviluppo economico |
| --- |
| Dipartimento per l’energia |
| Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche |
| Divisione VI |
| Via Molise 2 |
| 00187 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |

Ministero dello sviluppo economico

Dipartimento per l’energia

Direzione generale delle risorse minerarie ed energetiche

Divisione VI

Via Molise 2

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

The application may also be submitted by e-mail to the following address: ene.rme.div6@pec.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it; the requisite documents should be submitted in electronic format together with the digital signature of a legal representative of the applicant.

In accordance with point 2 of Annex A to Prime Ministerial Decree No 22 of 22 December 2010, the overall duration of the procedure for the granting of prospecting licences must not exceed 180 days.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/27

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.7020 — LVMH/Loro Piana)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 303/12

| 1. | On 11 October 2013, 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 LVMH Moët Hennessy — Louis Vuitton SA (LVMH, France), controlled by Group Arnault SAS, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Loro Piana SpA (Loro Piana, Italy) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 11 October 2013, 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 LVMH Moët Hennessy — Louis Vuitton SA (LVMH, France), controlled by Group Arnault SAS, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Loro Piana SpA (Loro Piana, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for LVMH: production and sale of luxury goods (wines and spirits; fashion and leather goods, including accessories; perfumes and cosmetics; watches and jewellery; selective retailing as well as the luxury yachts industry). LVMH is controlled by Groupe Arnault, which also controls Christian Dior Couture, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for LVMH: production and sale of luxury goods (wines and spirits; fashion and leather goods, including accessories; perfumes and cosmetics; watches and jewellery; selective retailing as well as the luxury yachts industry). LVMH is controlled by Groupe Arnault, which also controls Christian Dior Couture,

| — | for Loro Piana: production and sale of luxury fashion goods, leather goods, accessories, shoes, as well as textiles, fabrics, yarns for fashion goods and fabrics for interior decoration and furnishings. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Loro Piana: production and sale of luxury fashion goods, leather goods, accessories, shoes, as well as textiles, fabrics, yarns for fashion goods and fabrics for interior decoration and furnishings.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. 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 the EC Merger Regulation. 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 (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7020 — LVMH/Loro Piana, 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7020 — LVMH/Loro Piana, 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 ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/28

---

Notice concerning a request in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC

Request from a contracting entity

2013/C 303/13

On 1 October 2013, the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors. The first working day following receipt of the request is 2 October 2013.

The request, from Österreichische Post AG, concerns postal services and other services as referred to in Article 6(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2004/17/EC in Austria. The abovementioned Article 30 provides that Directive 2004/17/EC is not applicable when the activity in question is directly exposed to competition in markets to which access is not restricted. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC and are without prejudice to the application of competition rules.

The Commission is allowed a period of three months to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 2 January 2014.

This period may be extended by three months. Any such extension must be published.

According to the second subparagraph of Article 30(6), further requests concerning postal services and other services in Austria before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.

---