# Official Journal C 314/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 314 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5713 September 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 314

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5713 September 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 314/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7323 — Nordic Capital/GHD Verwaltung) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2014/C 314/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7327 — AdP/BBI/IFC/Marguerite/TAV/ZAIC) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 314/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7323 — Nordic Capital/GHD Verwaltung) (
  1
  )

1

1

2014/C 314/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7327 — AdP/BBI/IFC/Marguerite/TAV/ZAIC) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2014/C 314/03 | List of appointments made by the Council — January-July 2014 (social field) | 2 |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 314/04 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |
| 2014/C 314/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 24 February 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39984 OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange — Rapporteur: Hungary | 5 |
| 2014/C 314/06 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange (AT.39984) | 6 |
| 2014/C 314/07 | Summary of Commission Decision of 5 March 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39984 — OPCOM/Romanian Power exchange) (notified under document C(2014) 1342 final) | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2014/C 314/03

List of appointments made by the Council — January-July 2014 (social field)

2

European Commission

2014/C 314/04

Euro exchange rates

4

2014/C 314/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 24 February 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39984 OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange — Rapporteur: Hungary

5

2014/C 314/06

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange (AT.39984)

6

2014/C 314/07

Summary of Commission Decision of 5 March 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39984 — OPCOM/Romanian Power exchange) (notified under document C(2014) 1342 final)

(notified under document C(2014) 1342 final)

7

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

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7323 — Nordic Capital/GHD Verwaltung)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 314/01

On 14 August 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7323. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7323. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7327 — AdP/BBI/IFC/Marguerite/TAV/ZAIC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 314/02

On 8 September 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7327. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7327. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/2

---

List of appointments made by the Council

January-July 2014 (social field)

2014/C 314/03

| Committee | End of term of office | Publication in OJ | Person replaced | Resignation/appointment | Member/alternate | Category | Country | Person appointed | Affiliation | Date of Council Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2014 | C 302, 6.10.2012 | Mr Torbjörn WALLIN | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Sweden | Ms Kristina EKBERG | Arbetsförmedlingen | 14.4.2014 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2014 | C 302, 6.10.2012 | Ms Concepción ROJO | Resignation | Member | Trade Union | Spain | Mr Francisco GONZALEZ MORENO | CCOO | 14.4.2014 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2014 | C 302, 6.10.2012 | Ms Katri NISKANEN | Resignation | Member | Government | Finland | Mr Juhani RUUTU | Ministry of the Interior, Migration Department | 14.4.2014 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2014 | C 302, 6.10.2012 | Ms Annelies LAGAE | Resignation | Member | Government | Belgium | Ms Sylvie GUELLUY | FOD Binnenlandse Zaken | 6.5.2014 |
| Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work | 28.2.2016 | C 120, 26.4.2013 | Ms Carla ANTONUCCI | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Italy | Ms Emanuela PROCOLI | Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali | 14.4.2014 |
| Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work | 28.2.2016 | C 120, 26.4.2013 | Mr Sven-Peter NYGAARD | Resignation | Alternate | Employers | Denmark | Ms Maja BEJBRO ANDERSEN | The Confederation of Danish Employers | 14.4.2014 |
| Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems | 19.10.2015 | C 290, 27.10.2010 | Mr José de la CAVADA HOYO | Resigantion | Alternate | Employers | Spain | Mr Jordi GARCÍA VIÑA | CEOE | 14.4.2014 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2016 | C 151, 30.5.2013 | Ms Marion PAJUMETS | Resignation | Member | Government | Estonia | Ms Käthlin SANDER | Ministry of Social Affairs | 10.3.2014 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2016 | C 151, 30.5.2013 | Ms Aleksandra DUDA | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Poland | Ms Anna KIERSNOWSKA | Ministry of Labour and Social Policy | 5.6.2014 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2016 | C 358, 7.12.2013 | Ms Stephanie MATTES | Resignation | Member | Government | Austria | Mr Harald FUGGER | Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz | 24.3.2014 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2016 | C 358, 7.12.2013 | Mr Martin BORG | Resignation | Member | Employers | Malta | Mr David G. CURMI | MSV Life plc | 14.4.2014 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2016 | C 358, 7.12.2013 | Ms Veronika ŽIDLÍKOVÁ | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Czech Republic | Mr Matěj GREGÁREK | Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs | 8.7.2014 |
| Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work | 7.11.2016 | C 358, 7.12.2013 | Ms Carla ANTONUCCI | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Italy | Ms Emanuela PROCOLI | Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali | 14.4.2014 |

Committee

End of term of office

Publication in OJ

Person replaced

Resignation/appointment

Member/alternate

Category

Country

Person appointed

Affiliation

Date of Council Decision

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2014

C 302, 6.10.2012

Mr Torbjörn WALLIN

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Sweden

Ms Kristina EKBERG

Arbetsförmedlingen

14.4.2014

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2014

C 302, 6.10.2012

Ms Concepción ROJO

Resignation

Member

Trade Union

Spain

Mr Francisco GONZALEZ MORENO

CCOO

14.4.2014

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2014

C 302, 6.10.2012

Ms Katri NISKANEN

Resignation

Member

Government

Finland

Mr Juhani RUUTU

Ministry of the Interior, Migration Department

14.4.2014

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2014

C 302, 6.10.2012

Ms Annelies LAGAE

Resignation

Member

Government

Belgium

Ms Sylvie GUELLUY

FOD Binnenlandse Zaken

6.5.2014

Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

28.2.2016

C 120, 26.4.2013

Ms Carla ANTONUCCI

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Italy

Ms Emanuela PROCOLI

Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali

14.4.2014

Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

28.2.2016

C 120, 26.4.2013

Mr Sven-Peter NYGAARD

Resignation

Alternate

Employers

Denmark

Ms Maja BEJBRO ANDERSEN

The Confederation of Danish Employers

14.4.2014

Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems

19.10.2015

C 290, 27.10.2010

Mr José de la CAVADA HOYO

Resigantion

Alternate

Employers

Spain

Mr Jordi GARCÍA VIÑA

CEOE

14.4.2014

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2016

C 151, 30.5.2013

Ms Marion PAJUMETS

Resignation

Member

Government

Estonia

Ms Käthlin SANDER

Ministry of Social Affairs

10.3.2014

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2016

C 151, 30.5.2013

Ms Aleksandra DUDA

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Poland

Ms Anna KIERSNOWSKA

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy

5.6.2014

Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

30.11.2016

C 358, 7.12.2013

Ms Stephanie MATTES

Resignation

Member

Government

Austria

Mr Harald FUGGER

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz

24.3.2014

Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

30.11.2016

C 358, 7.12.2013

Mr Martin BORG

Resignation

Member

Employers

Malta

Mr David G. CURMI

MSV Life plc

14.4.2014

Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

30.11.2016

C 358, 7.12.2013

Ms Veronika ŽIDLÍKOVÁ

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Czech Republic

Mr Matěj GREGÁREK

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

8.7.2014

Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

7.11.2016

C 358, 7.12.2013

Ms Carla ANTONUCCI

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Italy

Ms Emanuela PROCOLI

Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali

14.4.2014

---

European Commission

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 September 2014

2014/C 314/04

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2931 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,72 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4437 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79660 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2308 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2089 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2405 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,600 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,88 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1977 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4248 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8507 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4283 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4300 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0223 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5835 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6314 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 338,42 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1961 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9312 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6248 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 304,21 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1308 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,897 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 49,0034 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,631 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9828 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,1271 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,5970 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2931

JPY

Japanese yen

138,72

DKK

Danish krone

7,4437

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79660

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2308

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2089

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2405

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,600

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,88

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1977

RON

Romanian leu

4,4248

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8507

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4283

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4300

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0223

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5835

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6314

KRW

South Korean won

1 338,42

ZAR

South African rand

14,1961

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9312

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6248

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 304,21

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1308

PHP

Philippine peso

56,897

RUB

Russian rouble

49,0034

THB

Thai baht

41,631

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9828

MXN

Mexican peso

17,1271

INR

Indian rupee

78,5970

---

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

---

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and dominant position given at its meeting of 24 February 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39984 OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange

Rapporteur: Hungary

2014/C 314/05

| 1. | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market as the market for services facilitating short-term electricity trading. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definition of the relevant product market as the market for services facilitating short-term electricity trading.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market is the whole territory of Romania.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market is the whole territory of Romania.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that OPCOM abused its dominant position on the relevant market by discriminating market participants on grounds of nationality/place of establishment without objective justification.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that OPCOM abused its dominant position on the relevant market by discriminating market participants on grounds of nationality/place of establishment without objective justification.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Transelectrica should be held jointly and severally liable for the infringement of its subsidiary.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Transelectrica should be held jointly and severally liable for the infringement of its subsidiary.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on OPCOM and its parent company Transelectrica.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on OPCOM and its parent company Transelectrica.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringement to be taken into account for the calculation of the basic amount of the fine.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringement to be taken into account for the calculation of the basic amount of the fine.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to be taken into account.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to be taken into account.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.
  A majority agrees and a minority disagrees. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.

A majority agrees and a minority disagrees.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

10.

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

---

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange

(AT.39984)

2014/C 314/06

| (1) | On 6 December 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against SC OPCOM SA (‘OPCOM’) and its parent company C.N.T.E.E. Transelectrica S.A. (‘Transelectrica’) for alleged abuse of dominance on the market for services facilitating electricity trading in Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 6 December 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against SC OPCOM SA (‘OPCOM’) and its parent company C.N.T.E.E. Transelectrica S.A. (‘Transelectrica’) for alleged abuse of dominance on the market for services facilitating electricity trading in Romania.

| (2) | The Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was adopted on 29 May 2013. According to the SO, OPCOM’s requirement that foreign traders obtain a Romanian VAT registration inhibits competition on the Romanian electricity market. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was adopted on 29 May 2013. According to the SO, OPCOM’s requirement that foreign traders obtain a Romanian VAT registration inhibits competition on the Romanian electricity market.

| (3) | On 7 June 2013, OPCOM and Transelectrica received access to the file and subsequently submitted their replies to the SO on 5 and 7 August 2013 respectively, following a two-week extension to the original period of 6 weeks set by DG Competition to reply to the SO. In their written response to the SO, both OPCOM and Transelectrica requested an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 7 June 2013, OPCOM and Transelectrica received access to the file and subsequently submitted their replies to the SO on 5 and 7 August 2013 respectively, following a two-week extension to the original period of 6 weeks set by DG Competition to reply to the SO. In their written response to the SO, both OPCOM and Transelectrica requested an oral hearing.

| (4) | The oral hearing took place on 19 September 2013. Both OPCOM and Transelectrica attended. The European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET), invited by the Commission to express its views at the oral hearing, pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 12(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, also attended. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The oral hearing took place on 19 September 2013. Both OPCOM and Transelectrica attended. The European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET), invited by the Commission to express its views at the oral hearing, pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 12(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, also attended.

| (5) | On 28 November 2013 DG Competition sent to OPCOM and Transelectrica a Letter of Facts. Following an extension of the original deadline of 9 December 2013 to reply to the Letter of Facts, Transelectrica submitted its reply on 13 December 2013 and OPCOM on 6 January 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 28 November 2013 DG Competition sent to OPCOM and Transelectrica a Letter of Facts. Following an extension of the original deadline of 9 December 2013 to reply to the Letter of Facts, Transelectrica submitted its reply on 13 December 2013 and OPCOM on 6 January 2014.

| (6) | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

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

| (7) | In conclusion, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all parties in this case has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In conclusion, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all parties in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 26 February 2014.

Wouter WILS

---

(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) (Decision 2011/695/EU).

1

(2)  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).

2

(3)  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).

3

---

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/7

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 5 March 2014

relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(Case AT.39984 — OPCOM/Romanian Power exchange)

(notified under document C(2014) 1342 final)

(Only the Romanian text is authentic)

2014/C 314/07

On 5 March 2014 the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 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) | The decision relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 of the Treaty in the form of discrimination on grounds of nationality/place of establishment exercised against companies wishing to trade on the Romanian short-term electricity markets. The decision is addressed to S.C. OPCOM SA (‘OPCOM’) and to its parent company C.N.T.E.E. Transelectrica SA (‘Transelectrica’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The decision relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 of the Treaty in the form of discrimination on grounds of nationality/place of establishment exercised against companies wishing to trade on the Romanian short-term electricity markets. The decision is addressed to S.C. OPCOM SA (‘OPCOM’) and to its parent company C.N.T.E.E. Transelectrica SA (‘Transelectrica’).

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

| (2) | On 6 December 2012 the Commission decided to initiate proceedings within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in the present case (‘Regulation (EC) No 773/2004’ and ‘Regulation (EC) No 1/2003’ respectively). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 6 December 2012 the Commission decided to initiate proceedings within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in the present case (‘Regulation (EC) No 773/2004’ and ‘Regulation (EC) No 1/2003’ respectively).

| (3) | During the investigation, the Commission sent several requests for information (‘RFIs’) pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to OPCOM, to parties that could offer substitutable services (i.e. brokers), as well as to market participants that either purchased or were interested in purchasing electricity with delivery within Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

During the investigation, the Commission sent several requests for information (‘RFIs’) pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to OPCOM, to parties that could offer substitutable services (i.e. brokers), as well as to market participants that either purchased or were interested in purchasing electricity with delivery within Romania.

| (4) | On 29 May 2013, the Commission notified a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) to OPCOM and its parent company Transelectrica. The Commission took the preliminary view that OPCOM held a dominant position on the market for services facilitating electricity trading at wholesale level in Romania and was abusing its dominant position by imposing discriminatory requirements on EU traders for participation on its Day-Ahead and Intraday markets. OPCOM and Transelectrica submitted their replies to the SO on 5 August 2013 and 7 August 2013, respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 29 May 2013, the Commission notified a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) to OPCOM and its parent company Transelectrica. The Commission took the preliminary view that OPCOM held a dominant position on the market for services facilitating electricity trading at wholesale level in Romania and was abusing its dominant position by imposing discriminatory requirements on EU traders for participation on its Day-Ahead and Intraday markets. OPCOM and Transelectrica submitted their replies to the SO on 5 August 2013 and 7 August 2013, respectively.

| (5) | In accordance with Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Transelectrica and OPCOM requested to be heard on the matters to which the Commission had taken objection. An Oral Hearing took place on 19 September 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In accordance with Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Transelectrica and OPCOM requested to be heard on the matters to which the Commission had taken objection. An Oral Hearing took place on 19 September 2013.

| (6) | On 28 November 2013, the Commission sent a letter to the parties setting out additional elements of fact relating to the Commission’s existing objections which the Commission indicated it might use in a potential final decision (‘letter of facts’). Transelectrica and OPCOM submitted their written replies to this letter of facts on 13 December 2013 and 6 January 2014, respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 28 November 2013, the Commission sent a letter to the parties setting out additional elements of fact relating to the Commission’s existing objections which the Commission indicated it might use in a potential final decision (‘letter of facts’). Transelectrica and OPCOM submitted their written replies to this letter of facts on 13 December 2013 and 6 January 2014, respectively.

| (7) | The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 24 February 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 24 February 2014.

2.2.   The relevant market

| (8) | OPCOM operates the Romanian power exchange which is an organised market facilitating the trading of electricity for delivery in Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

OPCOM operates the Romanian power exchange which is an organised market facilitating the trading of electricity for delivery in Romania.

| (9) | On the basis of the analysis of demand and supply substitutability and competitive constraints in this case, the Commission has considered the relevant product market to be the market for services facilitating short-term (‘spot’) electricity trading (Day-Ahead and Intraday markets). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

On the basis of the analysis of demand and supply substitutability and competitive constraints in this case, the Commission has considered the relevant product market to be the market for services facilitating short-term (‘spot’) electricity trading (Day-Ahead and Intraday markets).

| (10) | The relevant geographic market was defined as Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The relevant geographic market was defined as Romania.

2.3.   Dominance

| (11) | Operating a power exchange in Romania requires a licence and such a licence had been granted during the relevant period to only one company, OPCOM. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Operating a power exchange in Romania requires a licence and such a licence had been granted during the relevant period to only one company, OPCOM.

| (12) | OPCOM offers services which facilitate short-term electricity trading in Romania. Similar services were until July 2012 also offered by brokers which mediate the sale of electricity between seller and buyer. However, brokers were only active to a very limited extent. Since July 2012 national law requires that electricity delivered in Romania can only be traded on the power exchange. Since that date, OPCOM has a legal monopoly as the only provider of electricity trading facilitation services in Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

OPCOM offers services which facilitate short-term electricity trading in Romania. Similar services were until July 2012 also offered by brokers which mediate the sale of electricity between seller and buyer. However, brokers were only active to a very limited extent. Since July 2012 national law requires that electricity delivered in Romania can only be traded on the power exchange. Since that date, OPCOM has a legal monopoly as the only provider of electricity trading facilitation services in Romania.

2.4.   Summary of the infringement

| (13) | The Decision finds that OPCOM has abused its dominant position on the market for services facilitating short-term electricity trading in Romania from 30 June 2008 until at least 16 September 2013 by discriminating against companies active in wholesale electricity trading on the basis of their nationality/place of establishment. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Decision finds that OPCOM has abused its dominant position on the market for services facilitating short-term electricity trading in Romania from 30 June 2008 until at least 16 September 2013 by discriminating against companies active in wholesale electricity trading on the basis of their nationality/place of establishment.

| (14) | In particular, in its standard agreements with traders OPCOM required EU traders to obtain a Romanian VAT registration in order for them to be admitted to the spot markets on the power exchange even though EU traders already have a VAT registration in their own country. EU traders therefore needed two VAT registrations to be active on OPCOM’s trading platform while Romanian traders only needed one VAT registration. The VAT registration requirement for EU traders did not result from Romanian legislation but was introduced by OPCOM’s standard agreements. Under EU and Romanian legislation, electricity traders with a VAT registration in one EU Member State should be able to be active in any other EU Member State without the need to obtain an additional VAT registration. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In particular, in its standard agreements with traders OPCOM required EU traders to obtain a Romanian VAT registration in order for them to be admitted to the spot markets on the power exchange even though EU traders already have a VAT registration in their own country. EU traders therefore needed two VAT registrations to be active on OPCOM’s trading platform while Romanian traders only needed one VAT registration. The VAT registration requirement for EU traders did not result from Romanian legislation but was introduced by OPCOM’s standard agreements. Under EU and Romanian legislation, electricity traders with a VAT registration in one EU Member State should be able to be active in any other EU Member State without the need to obtain an additional VAT registration.

| (15) | EU traders can obtain a Romanian VAT registration but this involves significant additional costs for them. It also undermines the efficiencies linked with the business model often used by traders of centralising trading activities across markets in one location. Further, it has the likely effect of preventing some traders from entering the Romanian electricity wholesale market. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

EU traders can obtain a Romanian VAT registration but this involves significant additional costs for them. It also undermines the efficiencies linked with the business model often used by traders of centralising trading activities across markets in one location. Further, it has the likely effect of preventing some traders from entering the Romanian electricity wholesale market.

2.5.   Lack of objective justifications and efficiencies

| (16) | OPCOM argued that the VAT registration requirement was justified because, without it, OPCOM would have had to finance a cash flow mismatch in VAT payments resulting from transactions with EU traders. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

OPCOM argued that the VAT registration requirement was justified because, without it, OPCOM would have had to finance a cash flow mismatch in VAT payments resulting from transactions with EU traders.

| (17) | A potential temporary cash flow mismatch would arise with respect to transactions involving EU traders who are not liable to pay VAT in Romania, where OPCOM would be required to finance VAT on transactions involving Romanian vendors and EU purchasers, pending reimbursement of the outstanding VAT by the Romanian tax authorities. This mismatch arises because in the context of its central counterparty function OPCOM buys electricity from sellers and sells electricity to buyers on the spot market. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

A potential temporary cash flow mismatch would arise with respect to transactions involving EU traders who are not liable to pay VAT in Romania, where OPCOM would be required to finance VAT on transactions involving Romanian vendors and EU purchasers, pending reimbursement of the outstanding VAT by the Romanian tax authorities. This mismatch arises because in the context of its central counterparty function OPCOM buys electricity from sellers and sells electricity to buyers on the spot market.

| (18) | The Decision addresses OPCOM’s arguments and explains that placing the financial burden resulting from any VAT mismatch on EU traders was a measure that was neither proportionate nor necessary, and could not be justified. Other means were available which is, inter alia, illustrated by the fact that other power exchanges in Europe face a similar situation regarding VAT payments in international transactions. None of them has chosen to solve this problem via a VAT registration requirement for EU traders. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The Decision addresses OPCOM’s arguments and explains that placing the financial burden resulting from any VAT mismatch on EU traders was a measure that was neither proportionate nor necessary, and could not be justified. Other means were available which is, inter alia, illustrated by the fact that other power exchanges in Europe face a similar situation regarding VAT payments in international transactions. None of them has chosen to solve this problem via a VAT registration requirement for EU traders.

2.6.   Conclusion

| (19) | OPCOM’s requirement according to which EU traders wishing to participate on the Day-Ahead Market and the Intraday Market in Romania must obtain a Romanian VAT registration constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality/place of establishment. It was capable of having restrictive effects, i.e. of excluding EU traders or making it more difficult for them to participate on the Romanian electricity spot markets. OPCOM thereby abused its dominance on the market for services facilitating short-term electricity trading in Romania and violated Article 102 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

OPCOM’s requirement according to which EU traders wishing to participate on the Day-Ahead Market and the Intraday Market in Romania must obtain a Romanian VAT registration constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality/place of establishment. It was capable of having restrictive effects, i.e. of excluding EU traders or making it more difficult for them to participate on the Romanian electricity spot markets. OPCOM thereby abused its dominance on the market for services facilitating short-term electricity trading in Romania and violated Article 102 TFEU.

2.7.   Fine calculation

| (20) | The fine has been calculated in line with the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. The fine was calculated on the basis of the value of sales by OPCOM on the spot market relating to the last full year of the infringement (i.e. 2012). |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The fine has been calculated in line with the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. The fine was calculated on the basis of the value of sales by OPCOM on the spot market relating to the last full year of the infringement (i.e. 2012).

| (21) | In fixing the amount of the fine, the Commission took into consideration the gravity and the duration of the infringement. The Commission had regard to the fact that the abuse was a clear-cut discrimination based on nationality/place of establishment and that OPCOM held very high market shares, which were continuously above 99 % and amounted to 100 % since July 2012 when OPCOM was granted a legal monopoly. The Commission took into account that the infringement lasted from 30 June 2008 (for the Day-Ahead Market) and from 14 July 2011 (for the Intraday Market) until 16 September 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

In fixing the amount of the fine, the Commission took into consideration the gravity and the duration of the infringement. The Commission had regard to the fact that the abuse was a clear-cut discrimination based on nationality/place of establishment and that OPCOM held very high market shares, which were continuously above 99 % and amounted to 100 % since July 2012 when OPCOM was granted a legal monopoly. The Commission took into account that the infringement lasted from 30 June 2008 (for the Day-Ahead Market) and from 14 July 2011 (for the Intraday Market) until 16 September 2013.

| (22) | No mitigating or aggravating circumstances were identified in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

No mitigating or aggravating circumstances were identified in this case.

| (23) | The decision imposed the fine jointly and severally on OPCOM and its 100 % parent company Transelectrica. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The decision imposed the fine jointly and severally on OPCOM and its 100 % parent company Transelectrica.

3.   OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION

| (24) | The decision establishes that the VAT registration requirement constituted a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union from 30 June 2008 until at least 16 September 2013 in the form of discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The decision establishes that the VAT registration requirement constituted a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union from 30 June 2008 until at least 16 September 2013 in the form of discrimination.

| (25) | A fine of EUR 1 031 000 has been imposed jointly and severally on OPCOM and its 100 % parent company Transelectrica. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

A fine of EUR 1 031 000 has been imposed jointly and severally on OPCOM and its 100 % parent company Transelectrica.

| (26) | Transelectrica and OPCOM are ordered to immediately bring to an end the infringement in so far as they have not already done so. Transelectrica and OPCOM must also refrain from repeating any act or conduct having the same or equivalent object or effect. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Transelectrica and OPCOM are ordered to immediately bring to an end the infringement in so far as they have not already done so. Transelectrica and OPCOM must also refrain from repeating any act or conduct having the same or equivalent object or effect.

---

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

---