----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 February 2005

(2005/C 42/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

STATE AID — FRANCE

State aid No C 15/2004 (ex N 267/2003) — Aid to producers and traders of liqueur wines: Pineau des Charentes, Floc de Gascogne, Pommeau de Normandie and Macvin du Jura

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2005/C 42/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By letter dated 20 April 2004 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified France of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

The Commission invites interested parties to submit their comments on the aid in question within one month of the date of publication of this summary to:

These comments will be forwarded to France. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

By letter of 23 June 2003, the French Permanent Representation to the European Union notified the Commission of the above-mentioned measure under Article 88(3).

The Commission has decided to initiate the investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the Treaty with respect to the abovementioned aid since it raises doubts as to its compatibility with Article 90 of the Treaty and consequently with Articles 87 to 89 of the Treaty.

The aid mechanism notified

The aids notified are a continuation of those previously notified to and approved by the Commission in connection with state aids Nos N 703/95 and N 327/98 and will involve publicity and promotion measures, research and experimentation measures, technical assistance measures and measures to promote the production of quality products. For all the inter-branch organisations targeted and all the aid measures described below, the total budget planned is EUR 12 000 000, broken down as follows: EUR 9 360 000 for Pineau des Charentes; EUR 2 040 000 for Floc de Gascogne; EUR 360 000 for Pommeau de Normandie and EUR 240 000 for Macvin du Jura.

The research, technical assistance and quality production development measures will be financed solely by the Member State from budget resources. The publicity and promotion measures will be financed partly by the Member State and partly by the inter-branch organisations concerned by means of obligatory voluntary levies (hereinafter ‘levies’) charged to their members. For publicity measures within the European Union the Member State will contribute up to a maximum of 50 %. The levies apply to the volumes of liqueur wines with registered designation of origin marketed by winegrowers, professional distillers, traders and wholesalers located within the production area of the registered designation of origin concerned.

The Commission's assessment of the measures

Dealing first with the nature of the levies in question, the Commission notes that they were made compulsory by the French Government under an extension procedure for inter-branch agreements. The agreements are extended by means of decrees published in the French official gazette. It follows that this type of levy required an official act in order to take full effect. Consequently, at this stage the Commission regards the levies as parafiscal charges, i.e. public resources. The financing of the measures in question thus constitutes a state measure to assist the wine products concerned.

1.   The aids

1.1.   Publicity and promotion measures

The Community guidelines for state aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty (1) specify the negative and positive criteria to be met by national aid schemes. Under sections 16 to 30 of those guidelines advertising campaigns are not to be contrary to Article 28 of the Treaty or to secondary Community legislation and must not favour particular firms. The Commission concludes that at this stage the aid measures seem to meet the conditions laid down at Community level, even if a commitment is necessary to make all references to the national origin of the products subsidiary.

1.2.   Research measures

The compatibility of this aid must be assessed in the light of the Community framework for state aid for research and development (2) and the Commission communication amending that framework (3). Aid intensities of up to 100 % are compatible with the common market provided that the four conditions laid down in the framework are met: the aid must be of general interest to the sector; the information must be published in appropriate journals; the results of the work must be made available on a basis of equality in terms of both cost and time; and the aid must meet the international trade criteria to which the EU has committed itself. The Commission considers at this stage that the conditions have been met.

1.3.   The technical assistance measures and the measures to assist the production of quality products

Sections 13 and 14 of the guidelines for state aid in the agriculture sector state that this type of aid is authorised, with an aid intensity of 100 %, where it is available to all those eligible in the area concerned based on objectively defined conditions and the total amount of aid granted does not exceed EUR 100 000 per beneficiary per three-year period or, in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises, 50 % of eligible expenditure, whichever is greater. The French authorities have undertaken to comply with those conditions. The Commission concludes that at this stage the aids in question appear to meet the conditions laid down at Community level.

2.   Financing of the aid

In accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice (4), the Commission normally considers that the financing of aid by means of compulsory charges may influence the aid by having a protective effect which goes beyond the aid as such. The levies in question are compulsory charges. According to the same case law, the Commission considers that aid may not be financed by parafiscal charges that also apply to products imported from other Member States. The Commission takes the view that since only national production of liqueur wines with registered designation of origin is subject to the levy it can be concluded at this stage that no imported product is being taxed.

According to a Court judgment (5), a charge constitutes a breach of the prohibition of discrimination laid down by Article 90 of the Treaty if the advantages accruing to the taxed national products processed and marketed on the national market from the use of the revenue generated by the charge only partially offset the burden borne by those products, thus placing exported national products at a disadvantage. The French authorities give a commitment that exported products will benefit no less from the measures financed via the inter-branch levies than products sold in France.

3.   Compatibility with other provisions of the Treaty

The Commission decision on State aid No N 703/95 was annulled by a Court of Justice judgment (6).

In its judgment the Court stated that during 1992 and 1993 the French Government had amended its national legislation concerning excise duty on alcoholic drinks and established a differentiated system of taxation for liqueur wines and naturally sweet wines. The Court explained that it was clear from the two complaints lodged on 24 March 1995 by the Associação de Exportadores de Vinho do Porto (Association of Port Wine Exporters; AEVP) that they were essentially based on the existence of a link between, on the one hand, the difference in taxation between liqueur wines and naturally sweet wines, and, on the other, the aid to French producers of liqueur wines. In the second complaint, which concerned infringement of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty (now Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty), the AEVP expressly maintained that the aid in question was intended to compensate French producers of liqueur wines for that difference in taxation, which meant, in essence, that only foreign producers of liqueur wines were subject to the higher level of taxation.

The Court also stated that State aid, certain of whose conditions contravene other provisions of the Treaty, cannot be declared by the Commission to be compatible with the common market and that in determining whether aid is compatible with the common market, it must take account of market conditions, including fiscal aspects. The Court indicates that the Commission did not refer in the disputed decision to the fact that the complaint by the AEVP was based essentially on a link between the difference in taxation between liqueur wines and naturally sweet wines and aid to French producers of liqueur wines. Nor had the Commission explained why it had concluded that the complaint was unfounded.

In the Court's view part of the aid in question appeared to favour a category of producers which coincided largely with the category of French producers of liqueur wines fiscally disadvantaged by the system of taxation. It ruled that it must therefore be acknowledged that the possible existence of a link between the system of taxation and the draft aid plan in question represented a serious difficulty in determining whether that plan was compatible with the provisions of the Treaty.

The Commission takes the view, in the light of the above-mentioned Court judgment, that a formal investigation under Article 90 of the Treaty must be initiated to determine whether there is any discrimination against imported products. The Commission considers at this stage that the explanations provided by the French authorities in connection with the notification do not categorically remove the doubts concerning a possible infringement of Article 90 of the Treaty since they do not directly deny that, as the Court says, part of the aid in question appears to favour a category of producers which coincides largely with the category of French producers of liqueur wines fiscally disadvantaged by the system of taxation.

The fact that the level of the aid proposed is not sufficiently great to bridge the fiscal gap created by the system between producers of the various wines does not exclude the possibility that these aids may, at least in part, serve to compensate disadvantaged French producers of liqueur wines in a manner unavailable to other Community producers. The same reasoning applies to the argument that the revenue from excise on liqueur wines is not reused for the benefit of national producers of liqueur wines.

The French authorities have not sufficiently explained the link between the charge and the amount of aid from the national budget in the light of the points raised by the Court. The Commission therefore wonders whether the French authorities have undertaken to compensate French producers of liqueur wines fully or partially for the impact of the charge on liqueur wines introduced in 1993.

The French authorities have stated that this sector generates a total of EUR 32 million a year in excise duties. This figure appears to include non-French production. The French authorities have not, however, provided a breakdown between French and imported products. Figures on individual production levels, whether French or Community, in relation to the proceeds from excise are also needed as a basis for examining the aids in question.

The Commission notes that Pineau de Charentes is, by far, the largest beneficiary of the aids notified, with 78 % of the amounts, followed by Floc de Gascogne with 17 %, Pommeau de Normandie with 3 % and, finally, Macvin de Jura with 2 %. The French authorities have been asked to explain whether these percentages correspond for each of these lines of production to the revenue which the State derives from the taxation of liqueur wines.

Since the aids are targeted for the most part on advertising and very little at other activities, the French authorities have been asked to explain whether the proportion of aid financed by the national budget for this measure is representative of the choices made by the French State in other areas of agricultural production and in particular quality products. The Commission also wishes to know the budget for the aid for advertising campaigns in France for each of the four products concerned.

Finally, explanations are also requested concerning any link between the resources derived from the levy and those from the national budget for financing the aids in question.

TEXT OF THE LETTER

‘Par la présente, la Commission a l'honneur d'informer la France qu'après avoir examiné les informations fournies par vos autorités sur la mesure citée en objet, elle a décidé d'ouvrir la procédure prévue à l'article 88, paragraphe 2, du traité CE.

I.   PROCÉDURE

II.   DESCRIPTION

1.   Les actions de publicité et de promotion

2.   Les actions de recherche

3.   Les actions d'assistance technique

4.   Aides à la production de produits de qualité

III.   APPRÉCIATION

1.   Caractère d'aide. Applicabilité de l'article 87, paragraphe 1, du traité

2.   Compatibilité de l'aide

2.1.   Les aides

2.1.1.   Aides à la publicité et à la promotion

2.1.2.   Aides à la recherche

2.1.3.   Aides à l'assistance technique

2.1.4.   Aides à la production de produits de qualité

2.2.   Le financement des aides

2.3.   Compatibilité avec d'autres dispositions du traité

IV.   CONCLUSION

----

(1)OJ C 252, 12.9.2001.

(2)OJ L 45, 17.2.1996.

(3)OJ C 48, 13.2.1998.

(4)  Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 47/69 Government of the French Republic v Commission of the European Communities, [1970] ECR XVI-487.

(5)  Judgment in Case C-234/99 Nygård, [2002] ECR I-3657.

(6)  Judgment in Case C-204/97 Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities, [2001] ECR I-03175.

(7)  Lettre aux autorités françaises du 21 novembre 1996, no SG(96) D/9957.

(8)  Lettre aux autorités françaises du 4 août 1998, no SG(98) D/6737.

(9)Agriculture in the European Union, Statistical and economic information 2002. Direction générale de l'Agriculture, Commission européenne.

(10)JO C 252 du 12.9.2001.

(11)  Conformément aux dispositions du règlement (CEE) no 2081/92 du Conseil, du 14 juillet 1992, relatif à la protection des indications géographiques et des appellations d'origine des produits agricoles et des denrées alimentaires (JO L 208 du 24.7.1992).

(12)  Aide d'État no N 166/2002.

(13)JO L 327 du 21.12.1999.

(14)JO C 28 du 1.2.2000.

(15)JO C 45 du 17.2.1996, p. 5, ultérieurement modifié en ce qui concerne son application au secteur agricole, JO C 48 du 13.2.1998, p. 2.

(16)  JO L du 3.1.2004.

(17)  CJCE, 25 juin 1970, affaire 47/69, Gouvernement de la République française contre Commission des Communautés européennes, Rec. XVI, p. 487.

(18)  Arrêt du 23 avril 2002 dans l'affaire C-234/99, Nygard, Recueil 2002, p. I-3657.

(19)  Arrêt de la Cour du 3 mai 2001, affaire C-204/97, République portugaise contre Commission des Communautés européennes, Rec., p. I-03175.

(20)  1 FRF = 0,15 EUR.

(21)  Arrêt du 7 avril 1987 dans l'affaire C-196/85, Rec., p. 1597.

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3697 — SYMANTEC/VERITAS)

(2005/C 42/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

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

----

----

STATE AID — ITALY

State aid N586/2003, N587/2003, N589/2003 & C 48/2004 (ex N595/2003) — Extension of the 3 year delivery limit for a chemical Tanker

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2005/C 42/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 30 December 2004 and reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified Italy of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the above-mentioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

These comments will be communicated to Italy. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

TEXT OF SUMMARY

In December 2003, Italy notified the Commission four requests for an extension of the three-year delivery limit for a sea going vessel each, which were respectively assigned State aid numbers N 586/2003, N 587/2003, N 589/2003 and N 595/2003.

The Commission has decided to grant an extension of the three-year delivery limit in the first three aforementioned cases, which concern three vessels named C.190, C.197 and C.196, built by shipyard Cantiere Navale De Poli S.p.A, in Italy. The extensions granted are of a duration of 4 months for the chemical tanker named C.190, and 6 months for the LPG tankers named C.196 and C.197 in accordance with Article 3(2) second subparagraph in the Shipbuilding Regulation. However, the Commission could not reach the same decision concerning State aid case N 595/03 after the preliminary investigation period.

State aid case N 595/03 concerns a chemical tanker built by Cantieri Navali Termoli, which was ordered by the ship owner Marnavi S.p.A. The delivery date is requested to be postponed from the end of 2003 to 31 October 2004. The shipyard produces the ship according to the new delivery date.

The Commission's approval of the request is necessary since, in accordance with Article 3 in Council Regulation (EC) 1540/1998 on state aid to shipbuilding, ships delivered after 2003 are not eligible for operating aid, even if the contracts were signed before the end of 2000. The total aid value for the ship is circa EUR 3.9 million.

The reasons underscoring the Italian authorities' request in the latter case include the same reason as for previous Commission decisions approving such requests, e.g. for Meyer Werft (1), i.e. that the ship owner request the contract suspension due to the impact of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Italy also invokes two further reasons, i.e. the need to make technical changes to the ship and disruptions to the yard's working programme due to the occurrence of two natural disasters (an earthquake and floods), which hit the region where the shipyard is located respectively in October 2002 and January 2003.

The Commission notes that final contract, signed in December 2000 with delivery date in June 2003, exists for the ship. It appears that the ship owner which is an important client of the shipyard also requested the suspension of the contract until 30 September 2003 due to the impact of the 11 September 2001 events. However, since the ship under review is not a cruise ship, the notified measure does not fulfil the same criteria as the decision on Meyer Werft, and the above reason cannot be accepted for the purpose of approving the notified request.

The Commission, however, verified the impact and compatibility of the other causes of delay invoked by Italy. If these reasons were not founded, an extension of the delivery limit would allow Italy to provide more operating aid than should be allowed.

Concerning the need to make technical modifications to the ship: it is noted that these were done at the ship owner's request in relation to the revocation of the contract suspension, which intervened on 29 September 2003; and that the modifications were formalised in an addendum to the original contract only on 10 December 2003. The Commission observes that whereas a ship owner may always demand changes to the shipbuilding contract, nevertheless those changes are not unforeseeable events in their occurrence and are not uncommon events in the shipbuilding sector. Such events are generally placed in the commercial sphere of the yard. Consequently this motive cannot be accepted.

Concerning the impact of the two natural disasters which struck the Region where shipyard is located: it is acknowledged that these events would normally constitute acceptable grounds. However, further to the examination of the available information, the Commission doubts that this consideration would hold in the present case.

In fact, it is noted that these events struck during the contract's suspension period and thus could hardly have affected the ship's construction since the latter was at least 8 months away from its material execution phase. Similarly, it is noted that no detailed information was supplied to allow the Commission to appraise the impact of the latter events on the shipyard's overall work programme either. Further, the Commission notes that 3 months before the expiry of the 31 December 2003 limit foreseen by Council Regulation (EC) 1540/98, technical modifications of a substantial nature were requested by the ship owner, these concerned the ship's length, width, tanks' number and size. It thus appears doubtful that any significant work on the ship could have been done on ship C.180, in particular having regard to the modifications requested in late 2003. In light of the foregoing, the Commission doubts that the natural disasters in point have had any impact on the working programme of the shipyard specifically concerning ship C.180.

Finally, it is also observed that the contract suspension was requested until 30 September 2003, and that the revocation was effective on 29 September 2003, i.e. 3 months before the 31 December 2003 delivery limit. However, given that the Italian authorities have stated that the construction of ship C.180 would require up to 15 months, it thus appears that the shipyard knew that it could not build the ship in just three months. Further, given the 15 months construction time required, it is noted that the shipyard must have known that in any event it could not deliver the ship before 31 December 2003 at the latest since early August 2002 or soon after, i.e. three months before the earthquake hit the Molise Region.

This analysis leads to doubts that the reasons invoked by the Italian authorities would comply with Article 3(2) second subparagraph of the Shipbuilding Regulation and could thus be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission therefore decided to initiate the formal procedure for the request to extend the delivery limit for a chemical tanker named C.180 built by Cantieri Navali Termoli S.p.A.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘1.   PROCEDIMENTO

2.   DESCRIZIONE PARTICOLAREGGIATA DELL'AIUTO

2.1.   Casi N 586/03, N 587/03 e N 589/03

2.2.   Caso N 595/03

3.   VALUTAZIONE

3.1.   Casi N 586/03, 587/03 e N 589/03

3.2.   Caso N 595/03

4.   DECISIONE

La Commissione ha pertanto deciso di accordare una proroga del termine ultimo di consegna di tre anni per le navi denominate C. 190, C. 197 e C. 196, costruite dal Cantiere Navale De Poli S.p.A (Italia). La proroga del termine ultimo di consegna di tre anni, per un periodo di 4 mesi per la nave petrolchimica denominata C. 190 e per 6 mesi per le navi gasiere adibite al trasporto di LPG denominate C. 196 e C. 197, è conforme al disposto dell'articolo 3, paragrafo 2, secondo capoverso del regolamento sulla costruzione navale.

Alla luce di quanto precede, la Commissione ha inoltre deciso di avviare il procedimento di cui all'articolo 88, paragrafo 2 del trattato CE in relazione alla proroga del termine ultimo di tre anni richiesta dall'Italia per la costruzione della nave petrolchimica denominata C. 180, costruita dai Cantieri Navali Termoli.

La Commissione ingiunge alle autorità italiane di trasmetterle, entro un mese dalla ricezione della presente lettera, tutti i documenti, le informazioni e i dati necessari per la valutazione della compatibilità dell'aiuto. In caso contrario, la Commissione adotterà una decisione sulla scorta delle informazioni già in suo possesso. Si invitano le autorità italiane a trasmettere una copia della presente lettera ai potenziali beneficiari dell'aiuto.

La Commissione fa presente alle autorità italiane l'effetto sospensivo dell'articolo 88, paragrafo 3, del trattato CE e richiama alla loro attenzione le disposizioni dall'articolo 14 del regolamento (CE) n. 659/1999 del Consiglio, che dispone che la Commissione potrà esigere il rimborso degli aiuti indebitamente erogati.

La Commissione comunica inoltre al Governo italiano che informerà i terzi interessati mediante pubblicazione della presente lettera e della sua sintesi nella Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee, nonché i terzi interessati nei paesi EFTA firmatari dell'accordo SEE tramite pubblicazione di una comunicazione nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee ed infine l'Autorità di vigilanza EFTA mediante invio di copia della presente. Tutti i summenzionati interessati saranno invitati a trasmetterle loro osservazioni entro il termine di un mese a decorrere dalla data di detta pubblicazione.’.

----

(1)OJ C 238, 3.10.2002, p.14, State aid case N 843/01.

(2)GU L 202 18.7.1998, pag. 1.

(3)  Le navi sono state consegnate il 28.4.2004 (C. 190) e il 28.6.2004 (C. 197 e C. 196).

(4)  Stargas Holding, AR.CO.TUR., AR.CO.IN e FASE Shipping B.V. sono importanti clienti del Cantiere Navale De Poli. Nel periodo tra il 1994 e il 2000, le commesse aggregate dei suddetti armatori hanno rappresentato il 54 % del fatturato del Cantiere De Poli, mentre nel periodo dal 2001 al giugno 2004 la loro quota del fatturato è salita al 99 %.

(5)  Tra il 2000 e il 2004, le commesse di Marnavi hanno rappresentato il 43 % circa del fatturato dei Cantieri Navali Termoli; nel quinquennio precedente (1995-1999 ) la corrispondente quota di fatturato era quasi uguale a zero.

(6)GU C 317 del 30.12.2003, pag. 11.

(7)  Cfr. il caso N 99/02 (GU 262, 29.10.2002), Cantiere Odense — Proroga del termine ultimo di consegna di 3 anni per due motonavi (Danimarca).

(8)  Cfr. caso N 607/2003 (GU C 95, 20.4.2004), Proroga del termine ultimo di consegna di 3 anni per il super Panfilo ‘Mirabella V’ (Regno Unito).

(9)  Cfr. caso N 99/02 — Danimarca — Cantiere Odense — Proroga del termine ultimo di consegna di 3 anni per due motonavi (Danimarca), (GU C 262 del 29.10.2002). Cfr. inoltre il caso N 607/2003 — Regno Unito — Proroga del termine ultimo di consegna di 3 anni per il super Panfilo ‘Mirabella V’ (GU C 95/2004). Cfr. anche il caso N 584/2003 — Italia — Proroga del termine ultimo di consegna di 3 anni per due navi Ro-Ro, approvata dalla Commissione il 14.7.2004, non ancora pubblicata nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea. Nei casi summenzionati la Commissione ha stabilito che la tardiva consegna dei componenti essenziali rispondeva ai criteri indicati al punto 24 della presente decisione.

(10)  Idem nota 6.

(11)  ‘Review of Tanker/Chemical/Small LPG Markets & Newbuilding Investment over 2001 e onwards’, Clarkson Research Novembre 2003, pag. 19-20.

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3662 — Xstrata/WMC Resources)

(2005/C 42/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 January 2005, 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:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3519 — Electra/ThyssenKrupp Fahrzeuggus)

(2005/C 42/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 January 2005, 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:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3666 — Nordic Capital/Plastal Holding)

(2005/C 42/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 February 2005, 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:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3676 — Warburg/Providence/Telcordia)

(2005/C 42/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 January 2005, 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:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3668 — DIFA/Investkredit/JV)

(2005/C 42/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 February 2005, 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 German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3690 — CNP/Capitalia/Fineco Vita)

(2005/C 42/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 February 2005, 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 Italian and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----

III Notices

European Parliament

----

NOTICE OF SELECTION PROCEDURE

(2005/C 42/11)

The European Parliament Secretariat is organising the following selection procedure:

----

(1)OJ C 42 A, 18.2.2005 (French and English edition).

----

Corrigenda

----

Corrigendum to Commission Communication 2003/C 118/03 regarding the explanatory note regarding the types of enterprise to be taken into account for calculating the headcount and the financial amounts

(Official Journal of the European Union C 118 of 20 May 2003)

(2005/C 42/12)

On page 8 of the Official Journal, in the explanatory note regarding the types of enterprise to be taken into account for calculating the headcount and the financial amounts, under the section ‘Type 2: Partner Enterprise’, the first two indents of the second paragraph are replaced by the following:

Footnote (3) is deleted.

In the first sentence of the first subparagraph of the section ‘Type 3: Linked Enterprise’, the words ‘the capital or’ are deleted.

----