# Official Journal C 193/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.193.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 193 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 542 July 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.193.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 193

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 542 July 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 193/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6252 — Total/SunPower) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 193/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6252 — Total/SunPower) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 193/02 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 1,25 % on 1 July 2011 — Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2011/C 193/03 | Commission Implementing Decision of 1 July 2011 concerning the financing for the year 2011 of activities in the veterinary field related to the European Union's information policy, support of international organisations, disease notification and computerisation of veterinary procedures | 3 |
| 2011/C 193/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 11 April 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — Rapporteur: Hungary | 11 |
| 2011/C 193/05 | Final report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/39.579 — Consumer Detergents | 12 |
| 2011/C 193/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 13 April 2011 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/39.579 — Consumer detergents) (notified under document C(2011) 2528 final)
   (
  1
  ) | 14 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2011/C 193/07 | Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (
  1
  ) | 17 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 193/02

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 1,25 % on 1 July 2011 — Euro exchange rates

2

2011/C 193/03

Commission Implementing Decision of 1 July 2011 concerning the financing for the year 2011 of activities in the veterinary field related to the European Union's information policy, support of international organisations, disease notification and computerisation of veterinary procedures

3

2011/C 193/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 11 April 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — Rapporteur: Hungary

11

2011/C 193/05

Final report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/39.579 — Consumer Detergents

12

2011/C 193/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 13 April 2011 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/39.579 — Consumer detergents) (notified under document C(2011) 2528 final)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2011) 2528 final)

1

14

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2011/C 193/07

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (
  1
  )

1

17

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 193/08 | Call for proposals — EACEA/16/11 — Under the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) — Promoting the integration of Roma in and through education | 18 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 193/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6275 — BNP Paribas/BNL Vita) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 20 |
| 2011/C 193/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6233 — Fred. Olsen Energy Wind/DONG Energy Power Holding/Novasion/Aalborg Universitet/Universal Foundation) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 21 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 193/11 | Publication of an application in accordance with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 22 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2011/C 193/08

Call for proposals — EACEA/16/11 — Under the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) — Promoting the integration of Roma in and through education

18

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2011/C 193/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6275 — BNP Paribas/BNL Vita) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

20

2011/C 193/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6233 — Fred. Olsen Energy Wind/DONG Energy Power Holding/Novasion/Aalborg Universitet/Universal Foundation) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

21

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2011/C 193/11

Publication of an application in accordance with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

22

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

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6252 — Total/SunPower)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 193/01

On 28 June 2011, 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 32011M6252. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6252. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/2

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1,25 % on 1 July 2011

Euro exchange rates (2)

1 July 2011

2011/C 193/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4488 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 116,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4589 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90500 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1280 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2267 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7900 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,310 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,93 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7091 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9678 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2396 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3362 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3523 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3964 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2750 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7552 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7772 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 545,06 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8011 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3663 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3898 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 371,01 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3587 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,511 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,3909 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,638 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2617 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9266 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 64,5950 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4488

JPY

Japanese yen

116,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4589

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90500

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1280

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2267

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7900

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,310

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,93

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7091

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9678

RON

Romanian leu

4,2396

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3362

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3523

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3964

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2750

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7552

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7772

KRW

South Korean won

1 545,06

ZAR

South African rand

9,8011

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3663

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3898

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 371,01

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3587

PHP

Philippine peso

62,511

RUB

Russian rouble

40,3909

THB

Thai baht

44,638

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2617

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9266

INR

Indian rupee

64,5950

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

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

---

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

of 1 July 2011

concerning the financing for the year 2011 of activities in the veterinary field related to the European Union's information policy, support of international organisations, disease notification and computerisation of veterinary procedures

2011/C 193/03

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Articles 20, 23, 35(2), 36(2) and 41 thereof,

Whereas,

| (1) | In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the budget of the European Union shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 75 of the Financial Regulation and Article 90(1) of the Implementing Rules, the commitment of expenditure from the budget of the European Union shall be preceded by a financing decision setting out the essential elements of the action involving expenditure and adopted by the institution or the authorities to which powers have been delegated by the institution.

| (2) | In accordance with Article 110 of the Financial Regulation, an annual work programme must be adopted for grants. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In accordance with Article 110 of the Financial Regulation, an annual work programme must be adopted for grants.

| (3) | It is necessary to lay down a work programme for the activities of the European Union in the veterinary field related to information policy, support of international organisations, disease notification and computerisation of veterinary procedures. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It is necessary to lay down a work programme for the activities of the European Union in the veterinary field related to information policy, support of international organisations, disease notification and computerisation of veterinary procedures.

| (4) | As the work programme in the annexes is a sufficiently detailed framework in the meaning of Article 90(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the General Budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Implementing Rules’), the present decision constitutes a financing decision for the expenditure provided for in the work programme for grants and procurement. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

As the work programme in the annexes is a sufficiently detailed framework in the meaning of Article 90(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the General Budget of the European Communities (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Implementing Rules’), the present decision constitutes a financing decision for the expenditure provided for in the work programme for grants and procurement.

| (5) | Article 19 of Decision 2009/470/EC rules that the Union shall make a financial contribution to the establishment of an information policy in the field of animal health, animal welfare and food safety in products of animal origin including the performance of studies necessary for the preparation and development of legislation in the field of animal welfare. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Article 19 of Decision 2009/470/EC rules that the Union shall make a financial contribution to the establishment of an information policy in the field of animal health, animal welfare and food safety in products of animal origin including the performance of studies necessary for the preparation and development of legislation in the field of animal welfare.

| (6) | Article 19 paragraph (a)(i) of Decision 2009/470/EC provides that the Union shall make a financial contribution to the gathering and storing of all information relating to Union legislation in the field of animal health, animal welfare and food safety in products of animal origin. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Article 19 paragraph (a)(i) of Decision 2009/470/EC provides that the Union shall make a financial contribution to the gathering and storing of all information relating to Union legislation in the field of animal health, animal welfare and food safety in products of animal origin.

| (7) | Communication activities were put in place in previous years to promote animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy principles to stakeholders, organisations and society as a whole. It is appropriate that these communication activities continue in 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Communication activities were put in place in previous years to promote animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy principles to stakeholders, organisations and society as a whole. It is appropriate that these communication activities continue in 2011.

| (8) | For the purposes of defining the communication strategy to be adopted from 2012 onwards it is appropriate to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Commission's promotion of animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy from 2008 to 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

For the purposes of defining the communication strategy to be adopted from 2012 onwards it is appropriate to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Commission's promotion of animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy from 2008 to 2010.

| (9) | Pursuant to Article 22 of Decision 2009/470/EC, the Union may undertake, or assist the Member States or international organisations in undertaking, the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Union veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Pursuant to Article 22 of Decision 2009/470/EC, the Union may undertake, or assist the Member States or international organisations in undertaking, the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Union veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.

| (10) | Under Article 168(1)(c) of the Implementing Rules, grants or contributions may be awarded without a call for proposals in the case of bodies with a de facto monopoly. As standard setting body under the WTO/SPS Agreement, and as the intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health and welfare worldwide through the implementation of its standards, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has a de facto monopoly in this sector, hence a call for proposals is not required in order for the EU to contribute to the organisation of Global Conferences and Regional Seminars on animal health and welfare. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Under Article 168(1)(c) of the Implementing Rules, grants or contributions may be awarded without a call for proposals in the case of bodies with a de facto monopoly. As standard setting body under the WTO/SPS Agreement, and as the intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health and welfare worldwide through the implementation of its standards, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has a de facto monopoly in this sector, hence a call for proposals is not required in order for the EU to contribute to the organisation of Global Conferences and Regional Seminars on animal health and welfare.

| (11) | Article 35(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC allows for Union financial assistance for the introduction of systems to identify animals and notify diseases. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Article 35(1) of Decision 2009/470/EC allows for Union financial assistance for the introduction of systems to identify animals and notify diseases.

| (12) | A Union financial contribution should be granted for the management of and for improving the Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS), based on Commission Decision 2005/176/EC of 1 March 2005 laying down the codified form and the codes for the notification of animal diseases pursuant to Council Directive 82/894/EEC (3). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

A Union financial contribution should be granted for the management of and for improving the Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS), based on Commission Decision 2005/176/EC of 1 March 2005 laying down the codified form and the codes for the notification of animal diseases pursuant to Council Directive 82/894/EEC (3).

| (13) | Article 36 of Decision 2009/470/EC provides for Union financial contribution for certain computerised systems used in intra Union trade and imports. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Article 36 of Decision 2009/470/EC provides for Union financial contribution for certain computerised systems used in intra Union trade and imports.

| (14) | It is necessary to continue to provide financial contributions for hosting, management and maintenance of the integrated computerised veterinary system Traces (Trade Control and Expert System) introduced by Commission Decision 2003/24/EC of 30 December 2002 concerning the development of an integrated computerised veterinary system (4). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

It is necessary to continue to provide financial contributions for hosting, management and maintenance of the integrated computerised veterinary system Traces (Trade Control and Expert System) introduced by Commission Decision 2003/24/EC of 30 December 2002 concerning the development of an integrated computerised veterinary system (4).

| (15) | Article 41 of Decision 2009/470/EC provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council and Parliament on the animal health situation and the cost effectiveness of the implementation of programmes for the eradication control and monitoring of animal diseases. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Article 41 of Decision 2009/470/EC provides for the Commission to submit a report to the Council and Parliament on the animal health situation and the cost effectiveness of the implementation of programmes for the eradication control and monitoring of animal diseases.

| (16) | This financing decision may also cover the payment of interest due for late payment on the basis of Articles 83 of the Financial Regulation and 106(5) of the Implementing Rules. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

This financing decision may also cover the payment of interest due for late payment on the basis of Articles 83 of the Financial Regulation and 106(5) of the Implementing Rules.

| (17) | For the application of this decision, it is appropriate to define the term ‘substantial change’ within the meaning of Article 90(4) of the Implementing Rules. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

For the application of this decision, it is appropriate to define the term ‘substantial change’ within the meaning of Article 90(4) of the Implementing Rules.

| (18) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The annual work programme for the implementation of Articles 20, 23, 35(2), 36(2) and 41 of Decision 2009/470/EC, as set out in Annexes I and II, is hereby adopted.

The work programme constitutes a financing decision in the meaning of Article 75 of the Financial Regulation.

Article 2

The maximum contribution authorised by this Decision for the implementation of the programme is set at EUR 5 370 000 to be financed from the following lines of the General Budget of the European Union for 2011:

| — | budget line 17040201: EUR 5 370 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

budget line 17040201: EUR 5 370 000.

These appropriations may also cover interest due for late payment.

Article 3

The budget implementation of tasks related to action 1.2.1. in the Annex may be entrusted to the following international organisation, which applies standards which offer guarantees equivalent to internationally accepted standards in its accounting, audit, internal control and procurement procedures: World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

Article 4

1.   The authorising officer may adopt any changes to this Decision which are not considered substantial within the meaning of Article 90(4) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and of proportionality.

2.   Cumulated changes of the allocations to the actions covered by the work programme not exceeding 10 % of the maximum contribution provided for in Article 2 of this Decision shall not be considered to be substantial within the meaning of Article 90(4) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, provided that they do not significantly affect the nature and objective of the work programme.

Article 5

Grants may be awarded without a call for proposals to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and for the organisation of the the first International Conference on Animal Health Surveillance (ICAHS), in accordance with the conditions detailed in the annexed work programme.

Done at Brussels, 1 July 2011.

For the Commission

John DALLI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 30.

1

(2)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 59, 5.3.2005, p. 40.

3

(4)  OJ L 8, 14.1.2003, p. 44.

4

---

ANNEX I

Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field, and in particular Articles 20, 23, 35(2), 36(2) and 41 thereof — Work Programme for 2011

1.1.   Introduction

This programme contains eight implementing measures for the year 2011. On the basis of the objectives given in the Council Decision 2009/470/EC of 25 May 2009 on expenditure in the veterinary field, the distribution of budget and the main actions are the following:

| — | for grants (implemented in joint management) (1.2.1):






  — | A Union financial contribution, for the organisation of global conferences on aquatic animal health, rabies control and foot-and-mouth disease, and regional seminars on sanitary information systems, animal welfare and animal production food safety, up to a maximum of EUR 660 000. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

for grants (implemented in joint management) (1.2.1):

—

A Union financial contribution, for the organisation of global conferences on aquatic animal health, rabies control and foot-and-mouth disease, and regional seminars on sanitary information systems, animal welfare and animal production food safety, up to a maximum of EUR 660 000.

| — | for procurement (implemented in direct centralised management) (1.3):






  — | Use of framework contracts for the publication and dissemination of information to promote animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy principles up to a maximum of EUR 1 500 000 (1.3.1). |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

for procurement (implemented in direct centralised management) (1.3):

—

Use of framework contracts for the publication and dissemination of information to promote animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy principles up to a maximum of EUR 1 500 000 (1.3.1).

| — | Use of framework contracts for studies, publications and the dissemination of information to support the strategy on animal welfare up to a maximum of EUR 575 000 (1.3.2). |
| --- | --- |

—

Use of framework contracts for studies, publications and the dissemination of information to support the strategy on animal welfare up to a maximum of EUR 575 000 (1.3.2).

| — | Use of open calls for studies, publications and the dissemination of information to support the strategy on animal welfare up to a maximum of EUR 210 000 (1.3.3). |
| --- | --- |

—

Use of open calls for studies, publications and the dissemination of information to support the strategy on animal welfare up to a maximum of EUR 210 000 (1.3.3).

| — | Use of framework contracts to update the Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS) with the necessary technical improvements up to a maximum of EUR 350 000 (1.3.4). |
| --- | --- |

—

Use of framework contracts to update the Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS) with the necessary technical improvements up to a maximum of EUR 350 000 (1.3.4).

| — | Use of framework contracts to host, maintain and develop the integrated computerised veterinary system TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System) up to a maximum of EUR 1 975 000 (1.3.5). |
| --- | --- |

—

Use of framework contracts to host, maintain and develop the integrated computerised veterinary system TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System) up to a maximum of EUR 1 975 000 (1.3.5).

| — | Use of framework contract for the performance of studies to support a report on the animal health situation and the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of programmes for the eradication control and monitoring of animal diseases up to an overall maximum of EUR 100 000 (1.3.6). |
| --- | --- |

—

Use of framework contract for the performance of studies to support a report on the animal health situation and the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of programmes for the eradication control and monitoring of animal diseases up to an overall maximum of EUR 100 000 (1.3.6).

1.2.   Grants

1.2.1.   Global conferences on aquatic animal health, rabies control and foot-and-mouth disease, and regional seminars on sanitary information systems, animal welfare and animal production food safety

Contributions shall be covered by a written agreement.

LEGAL BASIS

Article 23 of Council Decision 2009/470/EC

BUDGETARY LINE

17 04 02 01

IMPLEMENTING ENTITY

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is an intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health worldwide. In order to improve the animal health status worldwide and consequently lower the animal disease risk in the EU, it is important that the EU approach to animal health and welfare be shared with all member countries of the OIE and that the EU actively supports conferences and training seminars organised by the OIE in order to promote the Union's animal health and welfare policy at the occasion.

Under Article 168(1)(c) of the Implementing Rules, grants or contributions may be awarded without a call for proposals in the case of bodies with a de facto monopoly. As standard setting body under the WTO/SPS Agreement, and as the intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health and welfare worldwide through the implementation of its standards, the OIE has a de facto monopoly in this sector hence a call for proposals is not required in order for the EU to contribute to the organisation of global conferences and regional seminars on animal health and welfare.

The Commission and the OIE have signed on 7 June 2010 a long-term Framework Agreement laying down the administrative and financial arrangements for their cooperation (here attached), whereby the ‘European Union Contribution Agreement with an International Organisation’ (the ‘Standard Contribution Agreement’ or ‘SCA’) applies to global, regional or national programmes and actions administered by the OIE and financed or co-financed by the European Union.

This Framework Agreement (FA) was signed by DG AIDCO, in the name of the Commission. A thorough and complete assessment of the OIE had been done previously, through a ‘four-pillar assessment’ that established that the OIE applied, in its accounting, audit, control and procurement procedures, standards that offer guarantees equivalent to internationally accepted standards.

OBJECTIVES TO BE FULFILLED AND FORESEEN RESULTS

To share the EU approach to animal health and welfare with all members of the OIE through the promotion of the Union's animal health and welfare policy at the occasion of conferences and training seminars organised by the OIE. Eventually to improve the animal health status worldwide and consequently lower the animal disease risk in the EU.

DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURE

An overview of the different actions to be financed under this point can be found in Annex II.

IMPLEMENTATION

Joint management

DIRECT AWARD: ARTICLE 168(1)(C)

INDICATIVE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION

EUR 660 000

MAXIMUM POSSIBLE RATE OF CO-FINANCING

Not applicable

1.3.   Procurement

The global budgetary envelope reserved in 2011 for the procurement contracts amounts to EUR 4 710 000.

1.3.1.   Publications and dissemination of information to promote animal health issues and the Animal Health Strategy principles

LEGAL BASIS

Article 20 of Decision 2009/470/EC

BUDGETARY LINE

17 04 02 01

INDICATIVE NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONTRACTS ENVISAGED

Conclusion of at least four specific service contracts (use of existing framework contracts)

SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACTS ENVISAGED (IF POSSIBLE)

| — | To develop the communication campaign for the EU Veterinary Week 2011, in order to promote the Union's Animal Health Policy, including events, logistics and promotional materials. |
| --- | --- |

—

To develop the communication campaign for the EU Veterinary Week 2011, in order to promote the Union's Animal Health Policy, including events, logistics and promotional materials.

| — | Evaluation of the impact of 2008-2010 Communication campaigns (including, but not exclusively, the Vet Week Conference, One Health Roadshow, and World Veterinary Year 2011 activities). |
| --- | --- |

—

Evaluation of the impact of 2008-2010 Communication campaigns (including, but not exclusively, the Vet Week Conference, One Health Roadshow, and World Veterinary Year 2011 activities).

| — | Further translation and update of the online handbook on rabies prevention. |
| --- | --- |

—

Further translation and update of the online handbook on rabies prevention.

| — | Preliminary work in preparation for EU Veterinary Week 2012. |
| --- | --- |

—

Preliminary work in preparation for EU Veterinary Week 2012.

IMPLEMENTATION

Direct centralised

INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME FOR LAUNCHING THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

First half 2011

INDICATIVE AMOUNT OF THE CALL FOR TENDERS

EUR 1 500 000

SPECIFIC CONTRACT (IF APPLICABLE)

Conclusion of at least four specific service contracts under framework contract reference SANCO/2009/A1/005

1.3.2.   Study to support ongoing policy on animal welfare and maintenance of existing communication tools (framework contracts)

LEGAL BASIS

Articles 20 and 23 of Decision 2009/470/EC

BUDGETARY LINE

17 04 02 01

INDICATIVE NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONTRACTS ENVISAGED

A maximum of six service contracts (using a framework contract)

SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACTS ENVISAGED (IF POSSIBLE)

| (a) | One study on the welfare of farmed fish; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

One study on the welfare of farmed fish;

| (b) | Organisation or co-organisation of a maximum of four events to promote EU animal welfare standards for better implementation within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Organisation or co-organisation of a maximum of four events to promote EU animal welfare standards for better implementation within the EU;

| (c) | Maintenance of existing specific animal welfare websites Farmland and Animal Welfare Education; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Maintenance of existing specific animal welfare websites Farmland and Animal Welfare Education;

| (d) | Production of publications on animal welfare. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Production of publications on animal welfare.

IMPLEMENTATION

Direct centralised

INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME FOR LAUNCHING THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

July 2011

INDICATIVE AMOUNT OF THE CALL FOR TENDERS

EUR 575 000

SPECIFIC CONTRACTS

Conclusion of a maximum of five specific service contracts under framework contract reference SANCO/2009/A1/005 lots 1 and 2, and conclusion of one specific service contract under framework contract reference SANCO/2008/01/055, Lot 3

1.3.3.   Study and event to support ongoing policy on animal welfare (open calls for tender)

LEGAL BASIS

Articles 20 and 23 of Decision 2009/470/EC

BUDGETARY LINE

17 04 02 01

INDICATIVE NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONTRACTS ENVISAGED

A maximum of two service contracts (open calls for tender)

SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACTS ENVISAGED (IF POSSIBLE)

| (a) | One study to support the report on systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position due by Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

One study to support the report on systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position due by Article 27(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing;

| (b) | Co-organisation of a event to promote animal welfare mutual understanding outside the EU. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Co-organisation of a event to promote animal welfare mutual understanding outside the EU.

IMPLEMENTATION

Direct centralised

INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME FOR LAUNCHING THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

July 2011

INDICATIVE AMOUNT OF THE CALL FOR TENDERS

EUR 210 000

SPECIFIC CONTRACTS

Conclusion of a maximum of three open calls for tender

1.3.4.   Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS)

LEGAL BASIS

Article 35(2) of Council Decision 2009/470/EC

BUDGETARY LINE

17 04 02 01

INDICATIVE NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONTRACTS ENVISAGED

A maximum of three service contracts (use of existing framework contracts)

SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACTS ENVISAGED (IF POSSIBLE)

The objective of this procurement contract is:

| (a) | ongoing work on the ADNS system; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

ongoing work on the ADNS system;

| (b) | mapping: improved use of mapping tools; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

mapping: improved use of mapping tools;

| (c) | licenses and support. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

licenses and support.

IMPLEMENTATION

Direct centralised

INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME FOR LAUNCHING THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

Already executed by DIGIT

INDICATIVE AMOUNT OF THE CALL FOR TENDERS

EUR 350 000

SPECIFIC CONTRACT

Conclusion of a maximum of three specific service contracts (during 2011) under framework contract reference DI 5710-5750

1.3.5.   The hosting, management, maintenance and further development of the integrated computerised veterinary system TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System)

LEGAL BASIS

Article 36(2) of Council Decision 2009/470/EC

BUDGETARY LINE

17 04 02 01

INDICATIVE NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONTRACTS ENVISAGED

Several service contracts (use of existing framework contracts)

SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACTS ENVISAGED (IF POSSIBLE)

| (a) | EUR 1 925 000 for the hosting, management and maintenance of the integrated computerised veterinary system TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System), logistical support to assist TRACES users, contribution to central services, communication, web site, security and the purchase (maintenance and support) of software licences; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

EUR 1 925 000 for the hosting, management and maintenance of the integrated computerised veterinary system TRACES (Trade Control and Expert System), logistical support to assist TRACES users, contribution to central services, communication, web site, security and the purchase (maintenance and support) of software licences;

| (b) | EUR 50 000 to develop and implement an informatic platform for the exchange of information between national bovine databases, combined with the certification via TRACES. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

EUR 50 000 to develop and implement an informatic platform for the exchange of information between national bovine databases, combined with the certification via TRACES.

IMPLEMENTATION

Direct centralised

INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME FOR LAUNCHING THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

Signed framework contracts for everything except the administrative agreement with DIGIT for the hosting

INDICATIVE AMOUNT OF THE CALL FOR TENDERS

EUR 1 975 000 (part of 140 M. Euro ESP DESIS I & II (IT development services by DIGIT))

SPECIFIC CONTRACT

Conclusion of several specific service contracts (during the first semester of 2011) under framework contract references DIGIT

1.3.6.   Performance of studies to support a report on the animal health situation and the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of programmes for the eradication control and monitoring of animal diseases

LEGAL BASIS

Article 41 of Council Decision 2009/470/EC

BUDGETARY LINE

17 04 02 01

INDICATIVE NUMBER AND TYPE OF CONTRACTS ENVISAGED

Two service contracts (use of existing framework contract) OJ L 313, 28.11.2009, p. 129

SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACTS ENVISAGED (IF POSSIBLE)

To prepare studies as input towards finalising the report as mentioned in Article 41 of Decision 2009/470/EC

IMPLEMENTATION

Direct centralised

INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME FOR LAUNCHING THE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

Second semester of 2011

INDICATIVE AMOUNT OF THE CALL FOR TENDERS

EUR 100 000

SPECIFIC CONTRACT

Conclusion of two specific service contracts (during the first semester of 2011) under framework contract reference SANCO/2008/01/055

---

ANNEX II

Summary of the activities to be organised by the OIE in 2011, as referred to in Annex I point 1.2.1

| Activity | Venue | Dates (2011) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | Global conferences |
| 1.1. | Aquatic animal health programmes and their benefit for global food security | Panama City
  (Panama) | 27-29 June 2011 |
| 1.2. | Rabies control | Seoul
  (Republic of Korea) | 7-9 September 2011 |
| 1.3. | 2nd International Conference on Foot and Mouth Disease: ‘The way towards global control’ | Thailand | First semester of 2012 |
| 2. | Seminars and workshops |
| 2.1. | Regional seminar of Europe (OIE region) for OIE national focal points for sanitary information systems (WAHIS/WAHID) | Vladimir
  (Russia) | 15-17 June 2011 |
| 2.2. | Regional seminar of Europe (OIE region) for OIE animal welfare national focal points, linked with the animal welfare strategy for Europe | Kiev
  (Ukraine) | Date to be confirmed |
| 2.3. | Regional seminar of Europe (OIE region) for OIE national focal points for animal production food safety | Italy | 7-11 November 2011 |

Activity

Venue

Dates (2011)

1.

Global conferences

1.1.

Aquatic animal health programmes and their benefit for global food security

Panama City

(Panama)

27-29 June 2011

1.2.

Rabies control

Seoul

(Republic of Korea)

7-9 September 2011

1.3.

2nd International Conference on Foot and Mouth Disease: ‘The way towards global control’

Thailand

First semester of 2012

2.

Seminars and workshops

2.1.

Regional seminar of Europe (OIE region) for OIE national focal points for sanitary information systems (WAHIS/WAHID)

Vladimir

(Russia)

15-17 June 2011

2.2.

Regional seminar of Europe (OIE region) for OIE animal welfare national focal points, linked with the animal welfare strategy for Europe

Kiev

(Ukraine)

Date to be confirmed

2.3.

Regional seminar of Europe (OIE region) for OIE national focal points for animal production food safety

Italy

7-11 November 2011

---

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/11

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position at its meeting of 11 April 2011 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents

Rapporteur: Hungary

2011/C 193/04

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anti-competitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the anti-competitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and geographic scope of the agreement and/or concerted practice contained in the draft decision.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice has been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice has been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States of the EU.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment as regards the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

8.

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

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances applicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

10.

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

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| 12. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

12.

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

| 13. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the specific increase of the basic amount of the fines, for one of the addressees of the Decision, so as to ensure a sufficiently deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the specific increase of the basic amount of the fines, for one of the addressees of the Decision, so as to ensure a sufficiently deterrent effect.

| 14. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the amounts of reductions of the fines based on the 2006 Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

14.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the amounts of reductions of the fines based on the 2006 Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 15. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the Settlement Notice. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the Settlement Notice.

| 16. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

16.

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

| 17. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

17.

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

---

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/12

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/39.579 — Consumer Detergents

2011/C 193/05

This settlement proceeding concerns a cartel between the undertakings Henkel, Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Unilever aimed at the stabilisation of market positions and price coordination in the market for heavy-duty laundry detergent powders intended for machine washing and sold to consumers. The overall cartel infringement covered Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands and lasted from 7 January 2002 until 8 March 2005.

Background

The case started following an immunity application submitted by Henkel in May 2008 which was granted conditional immunity from fines on 12 June 2008. Subsequently, inspections were organised in July 2008 at the premises of a number of detergent manufacturers, including P&G and Unilever. Further inspections were carried out at the premises of Unilever in April 2009. P&G and Unilever applied for leniency in September 2008 and in October 2009 respectively.

The Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) on 21 December 2009. On 23 December 2009, the three parties were formally requested to indicate in writing their interest to engage in discussions with a view to introduce settlement submissions (3). All parties accepted the invitation and bilateral settlement discussions followed suit with the Directorate-General for Competition.

The settlement procedure

The settlement discussions were organised in three main phases between June 2010 and January 2011 during which period three rounds of formal bilateral meetings took place between the Commission and each of the parties.

During these meetings, the parties were orally informed of the objections that the Commission envisaged to raise against them as well as evidence supporting those objections. Following the first meeting in June 2010, the parties were given access at the Directorate-General for Competition's premises to the relevant evidence and all oral statements. Parties were also given access to the list of all documents in the Commission’s file and a copy of the evidence that had already been shown to them to enable their position regarding a time period or any other aspect to the cartel. Henkel and Unilever requested further access to the Commission's file which was considered justified and granted. The parties were also provided with an estimation of the range of likely fines to be imposed by the Commission within the framework of the settlement procedure.

At the end of the third round of meetings, the parties submitted to the Commission their formal request to settle pursuant to Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (4). In these settlement submissions, Henkel, P&G and Unilever clearly and unequivocally acknowledged their respective liability for an infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the parent companies of the three parties Henkel, P&G and Unilever clearly and unequivocally acknowledged that they are responsible for the behaviour of their subsidiaries which were involved in the cartel. In the settlement submissions, the parties also confirmed (i) that they had been sufficiently informed of the objections the Commission envisaged raising against them and that they had been given sufficient opportunity make their views known thereupon, (ii) that they did not envisage requesting access to file or to be heard in an oral hearing, subject to the condition that the Statement of Objections (SO) and the final Decision would reflect their settlement submissions and (iii) that they agreed to receive the SO and the final Decision in English.

The Commission adopted, on 9 February 2011, the SO reflecting the parties’ settlement submissions, which was notified to the parties at the Directorate-General for Competition’s premises.

All parties confirmed in their reply that the SO corresponded to the content of their settlement submissions and that they remain committed to the settlement procedure. The Commission could therefore proceed directly to a decision pursuant to Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

The draft decision

The draft decision retains the objections raised in the Statement of Objections and reflects hence also the parties’ respective settlement submissions. Accordingly, the draft decision relates only to objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity to make known their views.

In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any issues concerning access to files or their rights of defence to me or to the member of the Hearing Office attending the settlement meetings, I consider that the right to be heard of all participants to the proceedings has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 12 April 2011.

Michael ALBERS

---

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

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 622/2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 as regards the conduct of settlement procedures in cartel cases (OJ L 171, 1.7.2008, p. 3), and Commission notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ C 167, 2.7.2008, p. 1).

3

(4)  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).

4

---

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/14

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 13 April 2011

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/39.579 — Consumer detergents)

(notified under document C(2011) 2528 final)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 193/06

On 13 April 2011, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 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 is addressed to five companies and relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision is addressed to five companies and relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

| (2) | This case was triggered by an immunity application submitted on 13 May 2008 by Henkel. In June 2008 the Commission carried out unannounced inspections and P&G applied for leniency on 8 September 2008. On 2 October 2009, Unilever applied for leniency. The first request for information was sent in 2008 and a series of requests for information were sent at later stages. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

This case was triggered by an immunity application submitted on 13 May 2008 by Henkel. In June 2008 the Commission carried out unannounced inspections and P&G applied for leniency on 8 September 2008. On 2 October 2009, Unilever applied for leniency. The first request for information was sent in 2008 and a series of requests for information were sent at later stages.

| (3) | In this case the settlement procedure (2) was applied. Settlement discussions took place as from June 2010 after the companies indicated that they were prepared to engage in such discussions. Subsequently, in January 2011, they all introduced formal settlement submissions in which they clearly and unequivocally acknowledged their respective liability for the infringement. Subsequently, a statement of objections reflecting the parties′ submissions was notified to them and the parties all confirmed that its content reflected their submissions and they remained interested in the settlement procedure. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 11 April 2011 and the Commission adopted the Decision on 13 April 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In this case the settlement procedure (2) was applied. Settlement discussions took place as from June 2010 after the companies indicated that they were prepared to engage in such discussions. Subsequently, in January 2011, they all introduced formal settlement submissions in which they clearly and unequivocally acknowledged their respective liability for the infringement. Subsequently, a statement of objections reflecting the parties′ submissions was notified to them and the parties all confirmed that its content reflected their submissions and they remained interested in the settlement procedure. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 11 April 2011 and the Commission adopted the Decision on 13 April 2011.

2.2.   Summary of the infringement

| (4) | The present Decision concerns a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The single and continuous infringement, in which the addressees of this Decision participated, concerns heavy duty laundry detergent powders intended for machine washing and sold to consumers (‘HDD low suds powder’) and covered Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and The Netherlands. It was aimed at the stabilisation of market positions and price coordination and was therefore found to have the object of restricting competition. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The present Decision concerns a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The single and continuous infringement, in which the addressees of this Decision participated, concerns heavy duty laundry detergent powders intended for machine washing and sold to consumers (‘HDD low suds powder’) and covered Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and The Netherlands. It was aimed at the stabilisation of market positions and price coordination and was therefore found to have the object of restricting competition.

| (5) | The infringement is connected to the implementation of an environmental initiative as a result of which dosage and weight reductions of HDD low suds powder and corresponding packaging material were implemented (the AISE initiative). Although this initiative neither foresaw nor necessitated price discussions, the industry agreements and the discussions on the occasion of the initiative led to anticompetitive conduct among Henkel, P&G and Unilever. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The infringement is connected to the implementation of an environmental initiative as a result of which dosage and weight reductions of HDD low suds powder and corresponding packaging material were implemented (the AISE initiative). Although this initiative neither foresaw nor necessitated price discussions, the industry agreements and the discussions on the occasion of the initiative led to anticompetitive conduct among Henkel, P&G and Unilever.

| (6) | Henkel, P&G and Unilever sought to achieve market stabilisation by ensuring that none of them would use the environmental initiative to gain competitive advantage over the others and that market positions would remain at the same level as prior to actions taken within the environmental initiative (in particular the compaction of products). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Henkel, P&G and Unilever sought to achieve market stabilisation by ensuring that none of them would use the environmental initiative to gain competitive advantage over the others and that market positions would remain at the same level as prior to actions taken within the environmental initiative (in particular the compaction of products).

| (7) | As regards prices, Henkel, P&G and Unilever engaged in the following anticompetitive practices:






  — | first, they agreed on indirect price increases. In practice, the parties agreed to keep the price unchanged during the implementation of the different phases of the environmental initiative. In particular, the parties agreed not to decrease prices when products were ‘compacted’ (that is to say when the weight of the products was reduced), when the product quantity was downsized (that is to say when the product volume was reduced) or on some occasions when they collectively reduced the number of scoops (that is to say wash loads) per package, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(7)

As regards prices, Henkel, P&G and Unilever engaged in the following anticompetitive practices:

—

first, they agreed on indirect price increases. In practice, the parties agreed to keep the price unchanged during the implementation of the different phases of the environmental initiative. In particular, the parties agreed not to decrease prices when products were ‘compacted’ (that is to say when the weight of the products was reduced), when the product quantity was downsized (that is to say when the product volume was reduced) or on some occasions when they collectively reduced the number of scoops (that is to say wash loads) per package,

| — | second, they agreed to restrict their promotional activity, which is also considered as a form of price collusion. In particular, the parties agreed on excluding specific types of promotions during the implementation of the different phases of the environmental initiative, |
| --- | --- |

—

second, they agreed to restrict their promotional activity, which is also considered as a form of price collusion. In particular, the parties agreed on excluding specific types of promotions during the implementation of the different phases of the environmental initiative,

| — | third, the parties agreed on a direct price increase towards the end of 2004, which was targeted at specific markets, to be implemented in the order of market leadership, that is the market leader would implement first while the others would follow, |
| --- | --- |

—

third, the parties agreed on a direct price increase towards the end of 2004, which was targeted at specific markets, to be implemented in the order of market leadership, that is the market leader would implement first while the others would follow,

| — | in addition, the parties exchanged sensitive information on prices and trading conditions, thereby facilitating the various forms of price collusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

in addition, the parties exchanged sensitive information on prices and trading conditions, thereby facilitating the various forms of price collusion.

2.3.   Addressees and duration in the infringements

| (8) | The following undertakings are held liable for an infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement from 7 January 2002 until 8 March 2005:






  (a) | Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (3), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(8)

The following undertakings are held liable for an infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement from 7 January 2002 until 8 March 2005:

(a)

Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (3),

| (b) | The Procter & Gamble Company (4), |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The Procter & Gamble Company (4),

| (c) | Procter & Gamble International Sàrl (5), |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Procter & Gamble International Sàrl (5),

| (d) | Unilever PLC (6) and |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Unilever PLC (6) and

| (e) | Unilever NV (7). |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Unilever NV (7).

2.4.   Remedies

| (9) | In setting the fines, the Commission refers to the principles laid down in its 2006 Guidelines on Fines (8). It also applies the provisions of the 2006 Leniency Notice (9) and the Settlement Notice (10). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In setting the fines, the Commission refers to the principles laid down in its 2006 Guidelines on Fines (8). It also applies the provisions of the 2006 Leniency Notice (9) and the Settlement Notice (10).

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

| (10) | The basic amounts of the fine for each party result from the addition of a variable amount and an additional amount. The variable amount results from a percentage of up to 30 % of the value of the undertaking's relevant sales, depending on the degree of gravity of the infringement and multiplied by the number of years of the undertaking's participation in the infringement. The additional amount is calculated as a percentage between 15 % and 25 % of the value of the undertaking's relevant sales, irrespective of duration. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The basic amounts of the fine for each party result from the addition of a variable amount and an additional amount. The variable amount results from a percentage of up to 30 % of the value of the undertaking's relevant sales, depending on the degree of gravity of the infringement and multiplied by the number of years of the undertaking's participation in the infringement. The additional amount is calculated as a percentage between 15 % and 25 % of the value of the undertaking's relevant sales, irrespective of duration.

| (11) | The variable amount of the fine is set at 16 % of the value of the undertakings′ relevant sales. The relevant value of sales is the undertaking's retail sales of HDD low suds powder generated in the eight Member States covered by the infringement: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and The Netherlands. This amount is multiplied by the number of years of the duration of the infringement. The percentage to be applied for the purposes of calculating the additional amount is also set at 16 %. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The variable amount of the fine is set at 16 % of the value of the undertakings′ relevant sales. The relevant value of sales is the undertaking's retail sales of HDD low suds powder generated in the eight Member States covered by the infringement: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and The Netherlands. This amount is multiplied by the number of years of the duration of the infringement. The percentage to be applied for the purposes of calculating the additional amount is also set at 16 %.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

2.4.2.1.   Aggravating circumstances

| (12) | There are no aggravating circumstances in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

There are no aggravating circumstances in this case.

2.4.2.2.   Mitigating circumstances

| (13) | There are no mitigating circumstances in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

There are no mitigating circumstances in this case.

2.4.2.3.   Specific increase for deterrence

| (14) | In accordance with point 30 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, a specific increase of the basic amount of the fines is applied for one of the undertakings, based on the size of the undertaking concerned. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In accordance with point 30 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines, a specific increase of the basic amount of the fines is applied for one of the undertakings, based on the size of the undertaking concerned.

2.4.3.   Application of the 10 % of turnover limit

| (15) | Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 provides that the fine imposed on each undertaking must not exceed 10 % of its total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of the Commission decision. It is not required to adjust the amounts in the light of the undertakings' turnover in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 provides that the fine imposed on each undertaking must not exceed 10 % of its total turnover relating to the business year preceding the date of the Commission decision. It is not required to adjust the amounts in the light of the undertakings' turnover in this case.

2.4.4.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

| (16) | Henkel submitted an immunity application on 13 May 2008 under the Leniency Notice. Henkel was the first undertaking to inform the Commission about the present cartel concerning HDD low suds powder and it was granted conditional immunity from fines. Henkel's cooperation fulfilled the requirements in the Leniency Notice. Henkel is therefore granted immunity from fines in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Henkel submitted an immunity application on 13 May 2008 under the Leniency Notice. Henkel was the first undertaking to inform the Commission about the present cartel concerning HDD low suds powder and it was granted conditional immunity from fines. Henkel's cooperation fulfilled the requirements in the Leniency Notice. Henkel is therefore granted immunity from fines in this case.

| (17) | Considering both the quality of its leniency application and its timely cooperation from the beginning of the investigation, P&G is granted the maximum reduction foreseen for the first undertaking to provide significant added value, that is a reduction of 50 %. Considering the quality and the timing of its application, a reduction of 25 % is granted to Unilever. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Considering both the quality of its leniency application and its timely cooperation from the beginning of the investigation, P&G is granted the maximum reduction foreseen for the first undertaking to provide significant added value, that is a reduction of 50 %. Considering the quality and the timing of its application, a reduction of 25 % is granted to Unilever.

2.4.5.   Application of the Settlement Notice

| (18) | According to point 32 of the Settlement Notice, the reward for settlement results in the reduction by 10 % of the amount of the fine to be imposed after the 10 % cap has been applied having regard to the Guidelines on Fines. When settled cases involve also leniency applicants, the reduction of the fine granted to them for settlement is being added to their leniency reward pursuant to point 33 of the Settlement Notice. Consequently, the amount of the fine to be imposed is reduced by 10 %. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

According to point 32 of the Settlement Notice, the reward for settlement results in the reduction by 10 % of the amount of the fine to be imposed after the 10 % cap has been applied having regard to the Guidelines on Fines. When settled cases involve also leniency applicants, the reduction of the fine granted to them for settlement is being added to their leniency reward pursuant to point 33 of the Settlement Notice. Consequently, the amount of the fine to be imposed is reduced by 10 %.

3.   FINES IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

| (19) | For the single and continuous infringement dealt with in this Decision, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | on Henkel AG & Co. KGaA: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(19)

For the single and continuous infringement dealt with in this Decision, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

on Henkel AG & Co. KGaA: EUR 0;

| (b) | on the Procter & Gamble Company and Procter & Gamble International Sàrl jointly and severally: EUR 211 200 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

on the Procter & Gamble Company and Procter & Gamble International Sàrl jointly and severally: EUR 211 200 000;

| (c) | on Unilever PLC and Unilever NV jointly and severally: EUR 104 000 000. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

on Unilever PLC and Unilever NV jointly and severally: EUR 104 000 000.

---

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

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2008 of 30 June 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, as regards the conduct of settlement procedures in cartel cases (OJ L 171, 1.7.2008, p. 3) and Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ C 167, 2.7.2008, p. 1).

(3)  Liability is imputed to Henkel AG & Co. KGaA for its own behaviour and the conduct of its relevant subsidiaries.

(4)  Liability is imputed jointly and severally to The Procter & Gamble Company and Procter & Gamble International Sàrl for the conduct of their relevant subsidiaries.

(5)  See footnote 4.

(6)  Liability is imputed jointly and severally to Unilever PLC and Unilever NV for their own behaviour and for the conduct of their relevant subsidiaries.

(7)  See footnote 6.

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

(9)  OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17.

(10)  See footnote 2.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/17

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 193/07

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Rennes–Mulhouse
  Rennes–Toulouse |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | Repeal |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Arrêté du 6 juin 2011 relatif à l’abrogation des obligations de service public imposées sur les services aériens réguliers entre Rennes, d’une part, Mulhouse et Toulouse, d’autre part (Decree of 6 June 2011 repealing the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between Rennes and Mulhouse and Rennes and Toulouse)
  NOR: DEVA1115300A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further information please contact:





  Direction générale de l’aviation civile |
| DTA/SDT/T2 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris Cedex 15 |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 158094321 |
| E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr |

Member State

France

Routes concerned

Rennes–Mulhouse

Rennes–Toulouse

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

Repeal

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Arrêté du 6 juin 2011 relatif à l’abrogation des obligations de service public imposées sur les services aériens réguliers entre Rennes, d’une part, Mulhouse et Toulouse, d’autre part (Decree of 6 June 2011 repealing the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services between Rennes and Mulhouse and Rennes and Toulouse)

NOR: DEVA1115300A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further information please contact:

Direction générale de l’aviation civile

DTA/SDT/T2

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

Tel. +33 158094321

E-mail: osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/18

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EACEA/16/11

Under the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP)

Promoting the integration of Roma in and through education

2011/C 193/08

1.   Objectives

The objectives of the call for proposals are:

| — | to support transnational cooperation projects in the development and implementation of coherent and comprehensive joined-up educational and other policy measures to raise the participation and the attainment levels of Roma students in general education and VET, |
| --- | --- |

—

to support transnational cooperation projects in the development and implementation of coherent and comprehensive joined-up educational and other policy measures to raise the participation and the attainment levels of Roma students in general education and VET,

| — | to support network activities for awareness-raising of the most successful experiences, joining-up educational measures and other policy measures for the social integration of Roma children and students. |
| --- | --- |

—

to support network activities for awareness-raising of the most successful experiences, joining-up educational measures and other policy measures for the social integration of Roma children and students.

This call is based on the LLP Decision which covers the 2007 to 2013 period. The specific objectives of the LLP are listed in Article 1.3 of the Decision (1).

2.   Eligible applicants

Beneficiaries can be NGOs dealing with the integration of Roma, other public bodies and stakeholders’ organisations, national ministries in charge of education and training, schools and other training bodies operating in the Member States.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 27 Member States of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 27 Member States of the European Union,

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

—

the EEA/EFTA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland,

| — | candidate countries: Croatia, Turkey. |
| --- | --- |

—

candidate countries: Croatia, Turkey.

3.   Eligible activities and duration

| — | training of teachers and of community mediators, |
| --- | --- |

—

training of teachers and of community mediators,

| — | capacity-building cooperation projects, |
| --- | --- |

—

capacity-building cooperation projects,

| — | cooperation projects (e.g. mutual and peer learning, extension, amplification or generalisation of best pedagogical, remedial and tutoring practices), |
| --- | --- |

—

cooperation projects (e.g. mutual and peer learning, extension, amplification or generalisation of best pedagogical, remedial and tutoring practices),

| — | awareness and dissemination actions, which may also include equal opportunities and education to citizenship features, |
| --- | --- |

—

awareness and dissemination actions, which may also include equal opportunities and education to citizenship features,

| — | networking. |
| --- | --- |

—

networking.

The maximum project duration is 12 months. Activities must start between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2012.

4.   Award criteria

Eligible applications will be assessed on the basis of the following award criteria:

| — | relevance (receiving a weighting of 40 %), |
| --- | --- |

—

relevance (receiving a weighting of 40 %),

| — | quality of the plan of actions (receiving a weighting of 10 %), |
| --- | --- |

—

quality of the plan of actions (receiving a weighting of 10 %),

| — | methodology (receiving a weighting of 10 %), |
| --- | --- |

—

methodology (receiving a weighting of 10 %),

| — | consortium (receiving a weighting of 10 %), |
| --- | --- |

—

consortium (receiving a weighting of 10 %),

| — | cost-benefit ratio (receiving a weighting of 10 %), |
| --- | --- |

—

cost-benefit ratio (receiving a weighting of 10 %),

| — | impact and European added value (10 %), |
| --- | --- |

—

impact and European added value (10 %),

| — | quality of the valorisation plan (dissemination and exploitation of results) (receiving a weighting of 10 %). |
| --- | --- |

—

quality of the valorisation plan (dissemination and exploitation of results) (receiving a weighting of 10 %).

5.   Budget

The total budget earmarked for this call is estimated at EUR 584 000 with a maximum grant of EUR 150 000 per project.

The Agency reserves the right not to distribute all the funds available.

6.   Deadline for the submission of applications

The final date for submission of applications is 16 September 2011 (postmark as proof of date of posting).

7.   Full details

Detailed guidelines for the call for proposals and the application package are available on the following website:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/funding/2011/call_roma_2011_en.php

Applications must be submitted using the forms provided and contain the relevant annexes and information as required in the detailed guidelines.

---

(1)  Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning. See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:0045:0068:EN:PDF

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/20

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6275 — BNP Paribas/BNL Vita)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 193/09

| 1. | On 23 June 2011, 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 BNP Paribas SA (‘BNPP’, France), through its fully owned subsidiary Cardif Assicurazioni SpA (‘Cardif Assicurazioni’, Italy), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking BNL Vita SpA (‘BNL Vita’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 23 June 2011, 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 BNP Paribas SA (‘BNPP’, France), through its fully owned subsidiary Cardif Assicurazioni SpA (‘Cardif Assicurazioni’, Italy), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking BNL Vita SpA (‘BNL Vita’, Italy) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for BNPP: banking and insurance, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for BNPP: banking and insurance,

| — | for BNL Vita: life insurance in Italy. |
| --- | --- |

—

for BNL Vita: life insurance in Italy.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6275 — BNP Paribas/BNL Vita, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6275 — BNP Paribas/BNL Vita, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).

---

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/21

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6233 — Fred. Olsen Energy Wind/DONG Energy Power Holding/Novasion/Aalborg Universitet/Universal Foundation)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 193/10

| 1. | On 23 June 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings FOEW (part of the Fred. Olsen Energy group with as ultimate parent Bonheur ASA) (‘Bonheur’, Norway), DONG Energy Power (a wholly-owned subsidiary of DONG Energy A/S)(‘DONG’, Denmark), Novasion (Denmark), and Aalborg Universitet (Denmark) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of MIG Business Development A/S (to be renamed Universal Foundation, pursuant to the transaction, Denmark) by way of purchase of shares and contract. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 23 June 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings FOEW (part of the Fred. Olsen Energy group with as ultimate parent Bonheur ASA) (‘Bonheur’, Norway), DONG Energy Power (a wholly-owned subsidiary of DONG Energy A/S)(‘DONG’, Denmark), Novasion (Denmark), and Aalborg Universitet (Denmark) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of MIG Business Development A/S (to be renamed Universal Foundation, pursuant to the transaction, Denmark) by way of purchase of shares and contract.

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






  — | for MIG Business Development: sales, development and design of foundations for offshore wind turbines and met masts, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for MIG Business Development: sales, development and design of foundations for offshore wind turbines and met masts,

| — | for Bonheur: shipping and offshore oil and gas exploitation, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Bonheur: shipping and offshore oil and gas exploitation,

| — | for DONG: exploration, production, generation, trading, sales and distribution of energy, |
| --- | --- |

—

for DONG: exploration, production, generation, trading, sales and distribution of energy,

| — | for Novasion: a holding company, holding a minority share in MIG Business Development, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Novasion: a holding company, holding a minority share in MIG Business Development,

| — | for Aalborg Universitet: Education and research. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Aalborg Universitet: Education and research.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6233 — Fred. Olsen Energy Wind/DONG Energy Power Holding/Novasion/Aalborg Universitet/Universal Foundation, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6233 — Fred. Olsen Energy Wind/DONG Energy Power Holding/Novasion/Aalborg Universitet/Universal Foundation, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/22

---

Publication of an application in accordance with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

2011/C 193/11

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months of the date of this publication.

SUMMARY

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘BÉA DU ROUSSILLON’

EC No: FR-PDO-0005-0548-30.03.2006

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

This summary sets out the main elements of the product specification for information purposes.

1.   Responsible department in the Member State:

| Name: | Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO) |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | 51 rue d’Anjou |
| 75008 Paris |
| FRANCE |

Name:

Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

Address:

51 rue d’Anjou

75008 Paris

FRANCE

Tel.

+33 153898000

Fax

+33 142255797

E-mail:

info@inao.gouv.fr

2.   Group:

| Name: | Syndicat de défense de la pomme de terre primeur du Roussillon |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | Marché de Gros |
| 66200 Elne |
| FRANCE |

Name:

Syndicat de défense de la pomme de terre primeur du Roussillon

Address:

Marché de Gros

66200 Elne

FRANCE

Tel.

+33 468359768

Fax

+33 468228695

E-mail:

—

Composition:

Producers/processors ( X ) Other ( )

3.   Type of product:

| Class 1.6. | Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.6.

Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

4.   Specification:

(summary of requirements under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

4.1.   Name:

‘Béa du Roussillon’

4.2.   Description:

The ‘Béa du Roussillon’ is an early potato, i.e. harvested before reaching full maturity, and sold fresh.

It comes exclusively from the Béa potato variety.

The ‘Béa du Roussillon’ is oblong and elongated in shape, as well as smooth and even. The delicateness of its waxy, smooth, light-yellow skin gives it a flaky rather than peeled appearance. It has light-yellow-coloured flesh. In terms of taste, it has an intense aroma of early season vegetables. It typically tastes mildly sweet and exhibits intense aromas reminiscent of early season vegetables (artichokes, peas and broad beans). It has a melt-in-the-mouth texture.

The ‘Béa du Roussillon’ is between 17 mm and 65 mm in size and has a dry matter content of less than 20 % at time of packaging.

The potatoes are put on the market with the designation of origin ‘Béa du Roussillon’ from 1 May until 31 July following harvesting.

4.3.   Geographical area:

The potatoes are pre-germinated, cultivated, washed, sorted and packaged in their geographical area of production, which covers the following municipalities on the plain of Rousillon (in the Department of Pyrénées Orientales): Alénya, Argelès-sur-Mer, Baho, Bompas, Canet, Corneilla-la-Rivière, Elne, Latour-Bas-Elne, Le Soler, Ortaffa, Palau-del-Vidre, Perpignan, Pezilla-la-Rivière, Pia, Saint-Cyprien, Saint-Estève, Sainte-Marie, Saleilles, Théza, Torreilles, Villelongue-de-la-Salanque and Villeneuve-de-la-Rivière.

The geographical area has a typically Mediterranean climate and lies on alluvial terraces of the late Quaternary period; it has a permeable sub-soil and distinctive landscapes formed as a result of human activity.

The potatoes are harvested in the geographical area of production, in an area broken down into plots or subplots, as approved by the National Committee on Agri-Food Products of the National Institute for Origin and Quality at its meeting on 19 May 2005.

This is an area of 5 500 hectares across the 22 municipalities of the geographical area of the designation of origin ‘Béa du Roussillon’.

The patchwork of plots making up the area has been marked on cadastral maps lodged with the local authorities of the municipalities concerned.

4.4.   Proof of origin:

The ‘Béa du Roussillon’ potatoes are checked and monitored from plot to finished product.

All the economic operators (producers and potato washing, sorting and packaging centres) and the means of production which make up the conditions of production of the designation of origin are identified. The operators must sign a proof of identity declaration before 1 November of the first year in which the designation is claimed. Product traceability is ensured by establishing records (stock records, cultivation register) and declarations retracing all product movements and operations.

Operators not wishing to use all or some of their means of production to produce products having the registered designation of origin must, before 1 May in the year of planting, make a declaration to the rest of the group that they will not allocate the means of production concerned towards the production of products with the designation.

At the end of the cropping season, each producer makes a harvest declaration which is notified to the group by 31 August of the year of harvesting. Operators carrying out collection, sorting and packaging activities make a summary marketing declaration to the rest of the group by 31 August of the year of harvesting.

The procedure is supplemented by scientific analysis and organoleptic testing based on sampling to ensure that the products are typical and of high quality. The check is made on consignments of early potatoes already packaged or ready for packaging.

4.5.   Method of production:

All operations related to the production, washing, sorting and packaging of the potatoes must be carried out within the defined geographical area.

The cultivation techniques as well as the washing, selection and packaging of the potatoes must contribute towards attaining and conserving the early season character of the potato, i.e. a flaky-skinned rather than peeled appearance.

The certified seed potato, of the Béa variety, is pre-germinated in small slatted boxes in well-lit, ventilated greenhouses or growing tunnels from the end of December to the start of January for a period of between four and twelve weeks.

Planting is done on ridges, in bare soil or soil mixed with straw, and must take place between 25 January and 20 April. The plants are deposited manually.

For plants between 28 and 35 mm in size, the requisite planting density is between 60 000 and 78 000 plants per hectare. In these cases, the distance between rows is between 70 and 80 cm and in-the-row spacing is between 17 and 20 cm.

For plants larger than 35 mm, the requisite planting density is between 42 000 and 53 000 plants per hectare. In these cases, the distance between rows is between 70 and 80 cm and in-the-row spacing is between 25 and 32 cm.

Growing the plants in greenhouses or growing tunnels is prohibited. Only temporary anti-wind or anti-frost covers are permitted.

Furrow, spray or localised irrigation is permitted from the time when 100 % of the crop has emerged until the eighth day before harvest. Overdry soil may be watered on the day before harvesting or on the day of the harvest itself.

Spraying of mineral or organic fertiliser is prohibited.

Chemical weed control is permitted (using half-doses on soils mixed with straw).

The production cycle lasts for at most 100 days. Haulm stripping before harvesting is prohibited. Crushing of the potato vines is permitted, but only on the day of harvest. Harvesting on a plot begins when 70 % of the potatoes are between 28 and 55 mm in size. Harvesting is done by hand or with the help of potato harvesters conforming to well-defined criteria aimed at preserving the integrity of the potato and especially limiting the number of bruises and falls. The potatoes are placed manually into boxes with a maximum capacity of 30 kg and delivered the same day to the collecting, washing, sorting and packaging stations.

The maximum allowable yield is 30 net tonnes per hectare.

Washing, sorting and packaging must take place in the area of production of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’, so as to preserve the quality and characteristics of this fresh and fragile vegetable which is particularly shock- and light-sensitive (resulting in sun scorch and rapid greening). Therefore, in order to preserve the flaky but unpeeled appearance of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’, it is packaged within 24 hours of harvesting. This means that the prior operations of washing and sorting must themselves be performed within a short period of time. Washing the potatoes at the edge of the field is prohibited. Washing, sorting and packaging the potatoes involves applying local skills using machines (for washing, sorting and packaging the potatoes) specially adapted to the product. The purpose of using these machines is to prevent any bruising of the potatoes. In this way the potatoes do not fall more than 50 cm throughout the process. If they do have to fall more than 30 cm, the potatoes are protected by a flap or they fall onto a soft mat.

Once sorted, the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ is:

| — | whole, i.e. free of any ablation or damage affecting its integrity, |
| --- | --- |

—

whole, i.e. free of any ablation or damage affecting its integrity,

| — | sound, |
| --- | --- |

—

sound,

| — | firm, |
| --- | --- |

—

firm,

| — | free from splits, i.e. it does not have any growth cracks, |
| --- | --- |

—

free from splits, i.e. it does not have any growth cracks,

| — | practically clean, free of any visible foreign matter, especially attached soil, |
| --- | --- |

—

practically clean, free of any visible foreign matter, especially attached soil,

| — | free of heat or frost damage, |
| --- | --- |

—

free of heat or frost damage,

| — | free of green discoloration, |
| --- | --- |

—

free of green discoloration,

| — | free of serious internal defects, |
| --- | --- |

—

free of serious internal defects,

| — | free of abnormal external moisture, |
| --- | --- |

—

free of abnormal external moisture,

| — | free of any abnormal taste and/or smell. |
| --- | --- |

—

free of any abnormal taste and/or smell.

Apart from helping to preserve the quality and characteristics of the product, packaging the potatoes in the geographical area helps strengthen the capacity to ensure their traceability.

Packaging: ‘Béa du Roussillon’ potatoes must be packaged in rigid containers with a maximum capacity of 15 kg. Furthermore, monitoring of the product is made easier by placing an item on each container which cannot be re-sealed when the product is sold to the final consumer. The potatoes are packaged in the following size classes:

| — | potatoes between 17 and 28 mm in size can be marketed under the designation ‘grenaille’, |
| --- | --- |

—

potatoes between 17 and 28 mm in size can be marketed under the designation ‘grenaille’,

| — | potatoes between 28 and 65 mm in size. |
| --- | --- |

—

potatoes between 28 and 65 mm in size.

Marketing: the potatoes are placed on the market with the designation of origin ‘Béa du Roussillon’ from 1 May until 31 July following harvesting.

4.6.   Link with the geographical area:

Owing to irrigation systems established by the Visigoths and the drainage of swamps by the Moors, hortas (gardens) were established very early on in Roussillon.

The potato was first planted in the area in the 18th century and covered 500 ha by 1855.

In this region, which is conducive to the growth of early season vegetables because of its semi-arid Mediterranean climate, the Béa variety became predominant from the time of its listing in 1954. Today this is the only basin (in all of France, Italy and Spain) where this variety is available as an early potato.

The soils used for growing ‘Béa du Roussillon’ are easily identifiable. They are alluvial soils overlying stony terraces. They are poorly developed, deep, permeable, with a loamy or sandy texture, very pliable and well-drained. They are free of rocks and gravel, which permits the potatoes to develop harmoniously.

Along with the climatic conditions, these soils give the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ its distinctive visual characteristics: long, flat, smooth, pale yellow and waxy. There is sufficient evidence to show that in soils with a different structure, the characteristics of the potatoes are very different (they are rough-skinned and rounder).

The ‘Béa du Roussillon’ benefits from a strictly Mediterranean climate, i.e. semi-arid, with a very marked dry season. The average temperature is 15 to 16 °C, with very hot summers and an average of 2 530 hours of sunshine per year. Rainfall is generally low (between 550 and 650 mm), but varies considerably depending on the year, and is often associated with thunderstorms.

With its unique exposure to sunlight, mild winters and hot summers (which are nonetheless tempered by proximity to the sea), this set of natural conditions allows the potato plants to develop harmoniously and smoothly.

The Tramontane wind, which blows in Roussillon on one day out of three and is often strong, could have been construed as a handicap, but it actually has a beneficial effect on the crop, restricting the development of cryptogamic diseases which are deleterious to the shape and smooth and uniform character of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’. Human knowledge has also been instrumental in limiting the impact of these diseases: to combat its direct effects (stem break), densities are high to establish a critical mass, and the plots are very fragmented, with hedgerows planted as windbreaks. Indeed, the sprouts are very fragile during the first growth phase, although once the plants are well-established they cope better with wind than other varieties, having thick stems and leaves which are more resistant to abrasion.

The resulting landscape is very distinctive, made up of small plots, high hedgerows and an ancient system of channels for water supply and removal. The landscape, without remaining static, changes very little and only with great care being taken. Changing the landscape would mean that cultivation of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ would have to be abandoned.

In terms of cultivation, pre-germination is essential for the preservation and development of numerous sprouts. Planting is done by hand, with the number of sprouts determining the planting density. The density is high to mitigate the effect of the wind. Furrow irrigation is being superseded by spray irrigation, which uses water more efficiently.

The producers’s skills are also evident at harvest time. The producers have invented potato harvesters adapted to the fragility of the Béa which extract the potato along with a bed of earth, as opposed to classic potato harvesters which remove as much earth as possible from the potato without taking due care of the potato itself.

The producers’ method helps protect the fragile potato from shocks, as it has a very thin skin. The harvesters operate very slowly and are labour-intensive to operate, as each potato is placed in its container by hand.

This also applies to washing, sorting and packaging operations in which the potatoes are protected from shocks by individual plastic or rubber chutes or flaps when they fall from a limited height, and rather than being packaged in traditional bags or netting, they are placed in rigid containers of a capacity not exceeding 15 kg to preserve their integrity.

The analytical, visual and taste characteristics of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ are linked to the land in which it is produced and its producers’s skills. The sensory analyses carried out between 1995 and 2004 clearly showed that, on the one hand, the distinctive characteristics of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ had remained stable over the years and, on the other hand, the same variety of potato produced elsewhere did not possess the same characteristics. Visually, potatoes of the same variety grown elswhere are thick, rounder, rough in appearance and a darker shade of yellow. The aromas of early season vegetables are missing or much less intense and conflict with the dominant smoky and burnt taste and smells.

The maximum dry matter content of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ may seem relatively high in comparison to that attained in other production basins, but there are many reasons for this: first of all the Mediterranean climate, with its low precipitation, strong sunlight (especially in spring, the potato’s growing period, and summer, when it matures), rainfall (typically rainstorms, often significant in spring) followed by strong sunshine and high temperatures, and secondly, the length of the cycle. As the season progresses, and as with cycles of nearly 100 days, the dry matter content increases to nearly 20 % without affecting the quality of the product.

However, above this threshold, the skin becomes thicker and the potato loses the characteristics of an early season vegetable. Indeed, sensory analyses have shown that the characteristics of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ are preserved and persist if the dry matter content is less than 20 % (especially as regards melt-in-the mouth texture and aromas of early season vegetables).

It is the combination of soils, climate and skills as a whole that has contributed towards the reputation of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’. It has an established reputation both among professional users and ordinary consumers. The arrival of the ‘Béa du Roussillon’ on the market is much anticipated and it overtakes other locally sold early season varieties as soon as it arrives.

Since the middle of the 1950s and still today, many articles in the local, regional and national press make reference to this typical local product, which is closely associated with its region of origin.

4.7.   Inspection body:

| Name: | Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO) |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | 51 rue d’Anjou
  75008 Paris
  FRANCE |
| Tel. | +33 153898000 |
| Fax | +33 142255797 |
| E-mail: | info@inao.gouv.fr |

Name:

Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

Address:

51 rue d’Anjou

75008 Paris

FRANCE

Tel.

+33 153898000

Fax

+33 142255797

E-mail:

info@inao.gouv.fr

| Name: | DGCCRF |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | 59 boulevard Vincent Auriol |
| 75703 Paris Cedex 13 |
| FRANCE |

Name:

DGCCRF

Address:

59 boulevard Vincent Auriol

75703 Paris Cedex 13

FRANCE

Tel.

+33 144871717

Fax

+33 144973037

E-mail:

—

4.8.   Labelling:

Apart from the mandatory references provided for in the regulations on labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, the labelling of early potatoes granted the designation of origin ‘Béa du Roussillon’ bears the following information on each pack;

| — | the name ‘Béa du Roussillon’ in a font at least as large as the largest font on the label, |
| --- | --- |

—

the name ‘Béa du Roussillon’ in a font at least as large as the largest font on the label,

| — | once EU registration has been completed — the words ‘appellation d’origine protégée’ or ‘AOP’, |
| --- | --- |

—

once EU registration has been completed — the words ‘appellation d’origine protégée’ or ‘AOP’,

| — | once EU registration has been completed — the EU PDO logo. |
| --- | --- |

—

once EU registration has been completed — the EU PDO logo.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---