# Official Journal C 201/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.201.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 201 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5226 August 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.201.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 201

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5226 August 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 201/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5545 — Arcelormittal/Noble European Holding) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2009/C 201/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5461 — Lyonnaise des eaux/Sociétés de distribution d'eau et d'assainissement) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 201/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5545 — Arcelormittal/Noble European Holding) (
  1
  )

1

1

2009/C 201/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5461 — Lyonnaise des eaux/Sociétés de distribution d'eau et d'assainissement) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 201/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2009/C 201/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 2 October 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips — Rapporteur: Lithuania | 3 |
| 2009/C 201/05 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips | 4 |
| 2009/C 201/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips) (notified under document C(2008) 6125 final)
   (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| | The Court of Auditors |
| 2009/C 201/07 | Special Report No 2/2009 The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003-2007): an effective way to improve health? | 9 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2009/C 201/08 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 10 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 201/03

Euro exchange rates

2

2009/C 201/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 2 October 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips — Rapporteur: Lithuania

3

2009/C 201/05

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips

4

2009/C 201/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips) (notified under document C(2008) 6125 final)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2008) 6125 final)

1

5

The Court of Auditors

2009/C 201/07

Special Report No 2/2009 The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003-2007): an effective way to improve health?

9

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2009/C 201/08

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

10

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 201/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5583 — PartnerRe/Paris Re) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| 2009/C 201/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5555 — Novartis/Ebewe Spezial-Pharma Holding) (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2009/C 201/11 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5580 — Blackrock/Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings) (
  1
  ) | 13 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 201/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5583 — PartnerRe/Paris Re) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

11

2009/C 201/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5555 — Novartis/Ebewe Spezial-Pharma Holding) (
  1
  )

1

12

2009/C 201/11

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5580 — Blackrock/Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings) (
  1
  )

1

13

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5545 — Arcelormittal/Noble European Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 201/01

On 7 July 2009, 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 32009M5545. 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 32009M5545. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5461 — Lyonnaise des eaux/Sociétés de distribution d'eau et d'assainissement)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 201/02

On 5 August 2009, 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 French 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 32009M5461. 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 32009M5461. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 August 2009

2009/C 201/03

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4324 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4429 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87405 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0895 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5171 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6095 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,356 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 266,96 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6998 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0806 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2210 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1351 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7054 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5411 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,1015 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0832 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0655 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 786,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1739 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7859 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3203 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 359,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0413 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 69,300 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,9399 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,723 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6293 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,4851 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,8370 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4324

JPY

Japanese yen

135,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,4429

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87405

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0895

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5171

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6095

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,356

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

266,96

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6998

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0806

RON

Romanian leu

4,2210

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1351

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7054

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5411

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,1015

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0832

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0655

KRW

South Korean won

1 786,44

ZAR

South African rand

11,1739

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7859

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3203

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 359,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0413

PHP

Philippine peso

69,300

RUB

Russian rouble

44,9399

THB

Thai baht

48,723

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6293

MXN

Mexican peso

18,4851

INR

Indian rupee

69,8370

---

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

---

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 2 October 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips

Rapporteur: Lithuania

2009/C 201/04

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the competitive assessment only focus on the markets for retail sales of motor fuels (at the downstream level). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the competitive assessment only focus on the markets for retail sales of motor fuels (at the downstream level).

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant markets of:






  (a) | retail sales of motor fuels in Sweden; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant markets of:

(a)

retail sales of motor fuels in Sweden;

| (b) | retail sales of motor fuels in Norway; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

retail sales of motor fuels in Norway;

| (c) | retail sales of motor fuels in Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

retail sales of motor fuels in Denmark.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the notified operation does not raise any competition concerns as regards the Danish market for retail sales of motor fuels. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the notified operation does not raise any competition concerns as regards the Danish market for retail sales of motor fuels.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the removal of Jet Sweden as an independent competitor and its merger with the largest operator in Sweden raises serious doubts about the notified operation's compatibility with the common market. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the removal of Jet Sweden as an independent competitor and its merger with the largest operator in Sweden raises serious doubts about the notified operation's compatibility with the common market.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the removal of Jet Norway as an independent competitor would impede competition in a context of high barriers to entry and raises serious doubts about the notified operation's compatibility with the common market and the EEA agreement. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the removal of Jet Norway as an independent competitor would impede competition in a context of high barriers to entry and raises serious doubts about the notified operation's compatibility with the common market and the EEA agreement.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission’s serious doubts concerning competition in Swedish market for retail sales of motor fuels. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission’s serious doubts concerning competition in Swedish market for retail sales of motor fuels.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission’s serious doubts concerning competition in Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuels. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission’s serious doubts concerning competition in Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuels.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to the full compliance with the commitments submitted by the notifying party, the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common market and with the EEA Agreement in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to the full compliance with the commitments submitted by the notifying party, the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common market and with the EEA Agreement in accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/4

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips (1)

2009/C 201/05

On 14 March 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking StatoilHydro ASA, Norway, acquires the retail petroleum business of ConocoPhillips in Scandinavia.

After examination of the notification the Commission concluded on 13 May 2008 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’). The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

StatoilHydro ASA was given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules, in the form of a selection of non-confidential versions of third parties’ replies to the phase-one requests for information; these were provided to the notifying parties on 22 May 2008.

On 20 June 2008, the Commission sent an Article 11(3) decision to both StatoilHydro ASA and ConocoPhillips suspending the time limits because the parties failed to supply complete information regarding data of their retail stations in Denmark, Norway and Sweden over 2004-2008. This suspension ended on 18 July 2008.

On 27 June 2008 StatoilHydro ASA offered commitments with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market. StatoilHydro ASA submitted an improved remedy proposal on 25 July 2008 which was ‘market tested’ by the Commission. On 1 September 2008, StatoilHydro ASA submitted a second improved remedy proposal which had been amended to address certain shortcomings of the previous proposal identified during the market test.

The Commission has concluded that the commitments submitted by StatoilHydro ASA are sufficient to remove the serious doubts raised by the concentration. Accordingly, subject to the full compliance with the commitments submitted by the notifying party, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 6 October 2008.

Michael ALBERS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 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

---

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/5

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 21 October 2008

declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips)

(notified under document C(2008) 6125 final)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 201/06

On 21 October 2008 the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
   (1)
  , and in particular Article 8(2) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found in the authentic language of the case and in the working languages of the Commission on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m4919_20081021_20600_en.pdf

I.   INTRODUCTION

| 1. | On 14 March 2008, the Commission received a notification pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’) of a proposed concentration by which the undertaking StatoilHydro ASA (‘SH’, Norway) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation the Scandinavian petroleum businesses of ConocoPhillips Company (‘ConocoPhillips’, United States of America), namely ConocoPhillips Denmark APS (‘JET Denmark’), ConocoPhillips Nordic AB (‘JET Sweden’) and ConocoPhillips JET AS (‘JET Norway’). JET Denmark will be acquired by Statoil A/S (Denmark), JET Sweden by Svenska Statoil AB (Sweden) and JET Norway by Statoil Norway AS (Norway). |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 14 March 2008, the Commission received a notification pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’) of a proposed concentration by which the undertaking StatoilHydro ASA (‘SH’, Norway) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation the Scandinavian petroleum businesses of ConocoPhillips Company (‘ConocoPhillips’, United States of America), namely ConocoPhillips Denmark APS (‘JET Denmark’), ConocoPhillips Nordic AB (‘JET Sweden’) and ConocoPhillips JET AS (‘JET Norway’). JET Denmark will be acquired by Statoil A/S (Denmark), JET Sweden by Svenska Statoil AB (Sweden) and JET Norway by Statoil Norway AS (Norway).

| 2. | The Scandinavian businesses of ConocoPhillips will collectively be referred to as ‘JET Scandinavia’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Scandinavian businesses of ConocoPhillips will collectively be referred to as ‘JET Scandinavia’.

| 3. | After examination of the notification, the Commission concluded on 13 May 2008 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

After examination of the notification, the Commission concluded on 13 May 2008 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

II.   THE PARTIES

| 4. | StatoilHydro ASA (SH) is an integrated oil and gas company active in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas (mainly in Norway), refining and retail and non-retail sales of fuels and other oil derivatives. SH was created in 2007 when Statoil ASA acquired Norwegian oil and gas company Norsk Hydro ASA (2). SH operates retail motor fuel outlets in Denmark, Norway and Sweden under the ‘Statoil’ brand (3). In addition, the company operates retail motor fuel outlets in Sweden under the ‘Hydro’ brand. |
| --- | --- |

4.

StatoilHydro ASA (SH) is an integrated oil and gas company active in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas (mainly in Norway), refining and retail and non-retail sales of fuels and other oil derivatives. SH was created in 2007 when Statoil ASA acquired Norwegian oil and gas company Norsk Hydro ASA (2). SH operates retail motor fuel outlets in Denmark, Norway and Sweden under the ‘Statoil’ brand (3). In addition, the company operates retail motor fuel outlets in Sweden under the ‘Hydro’ brand.

| 5. | JET Scandinavia operates retail motor fuel outlets in Denmark, Norway and Sweden under the ‘JET’ brand. JET Sweden also owns storage facilities for refined petroleum, one of which is dedicated to supplying JET Norway's retail network. |
| --- | --- |

5.

JET Scandinavia operates retail motor fuel outlets in Denmark, Norway and Sweden under the ‘JET’ brand. JET Sweden also owns storage facilities for refined petroleum, one of which is dedicated to supplying JET Norway's retail network.

| 6. | SH and JET Scandinavia will be referred together as the Parties hereafter. |
| --- | --- |

6.

SH and JET Scandinavia will be referred together as the Parties hereafter.

III.   THE RELEVANT MARKETS

| 7. | SH and JET Scandinavia are both active in the markets for retail sales of motor fuel. |
| --- | --- |

7.

SH and JET Scandinavia are both active in the markets for retail sales of motor fuel.

| 8. | For the purpose of this case the relevant product market has been defined as the market for retail sales of motor fuels. |
| --- | --- |

8.

For the purpose of this case the relevant product market has been defined as the market for retail sales of motor fuels.

| 9. | The product market is national because notably many service stations have largely overlapping catchment areas, which create ‘knock-on’ pricing effects, and the most important competitive parameters tend to be decided at a national rather than at a local level. However given that most retail fuel chains monitor neighbouring retail fuel stations, the assessment has to take into account that competition also takes place at the local level. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The product market is national because notably many service stations have largely overlapping catchment areas, which create ‘knock-on’ pricing effects, and the most important competitive parameters tend to be decided at a national rather than at a local level. However given that most retail fuel chains monitor neighbouring retail fuel stations, the assessment has to take into account that competition also takes place at the local level.

IV.   COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

| 10. | The Decision considers that the proposed merger raises serious doubts as to its compatibility (i) with the common market on the market for retail sales of motor fuels in Sweden and (ii) with the common market and with the EEA agreement on the market for retail sales of motor fuels in Norway. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Decision considers that the proposed merger raises serious doubts as to its compatibility (i) with the common market on the market for retail sales of motor fuels in Sweden and (ii) with the common market and with the EEA agreement on the market for retail sales of motor fuels in Norway.

| 11. | The Decision considers that the proposed merger does not raise serious doubts as to the market for retail sales of motor fuels in Denmark, since the merged entity will continue to face competition from the remaining players on this market. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Decision considers that the proposed merger does not raise serious doubts as to the market for retail sales of motor fuels in Denmark, since the merged entity will continue to face competition from the remaining players on this market.

1.   Competition concerns raised by the proposed concentration in Sweden

| 12. | SH is already the largest supplier by far in the Swedish market for retail sales of motor fuels and by acquiring JET Sweden (market share of [10-20] %) — thereby adding a substantial increment to its market share — SH will consolidate further its position as the leading service-station chain in the Swedish market, in a context of considerable barriers to entry. |
| --- | --- |

12.

SH is already the largest supplier by far in the Swedish market for retail sales of motor fuels and by acquiring JET Sweden (market share of [10-20] %) — thereby adding a substantial increment to its market share — SH will consolidate further its position as the leading service-station chain in the Swedish market, in a context of considerable barriers to entry.

| 13. | JET Sweden, which operates purely automated stations (163 stations), is the most efficient operator in the Swedish market with an average throughput per station which is far higher than its competitors. |
| --- | --- |

13.

JET Sweden, which operates purely automated stations (163 stations), is the most efficient operator in the Swedish market with an average throughput per station which is far higher than its competitors.

| 14. | JET Sweden systematically undercuts its rivals’ prices by applying a price differential and has a long history of defending the differential if challenged by competitors. |
| --- | --- |

14.

JET Sweden systematically undercuts its rivals’ prices by applying a price differential and has a long history of defending the differential if challenged by competitors.

| 15. | SH's internal documents show that SH regards JET Sweden as its strongest competitive constraint. |
| --- | --- |

15.

SH's internal documents show that SH regards JET Sweden as its strongest competitive constraint.

| 16. | JET Sweden's strong competitive constraint has been confirmed by (i) the market investigation, (ii) the consumer survey and (iii) the econometric analysis relating to JET Sweden's impact on the Statoil network's pricing, all carried out by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

16.

JET Sweden's strong competitive constraint has been confirmed by (i) the market investigation, (ii) the consumer survey and (iii) the econometric analysis relating to JET Sweden's impact on the Statoil network's pricing, all carried out by the Commission.

| 17. | The Decision therefore concludes that the removal of JET Sweden as an independent competitor and its merger with the largest operator in Sweden gives rise to serious doubts as regards its impact on competition in the Swedish market for retail sales of motor fuels. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The Decision therefore concludes that the removal of JET Sweden as an independent competitor and its merger with the largest operator in Sweden gives rise to serious doubts as regards its impact on competition in the Swedish market for retail sales of motor fuels.

2.   Competition concerns raised by the proposed concentration in Norway

| 18. | The Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuel is highly concentrated, since [90-100] % of this market is shared between the four incumbents (SH, Shell, Esso, YX Energi). JET Norway has a market share of about [0-5] %. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuel is highly concentrated, since [90-100] % of this market is shared between the four incumbents (SH, Shell, Esso, YX Energi). JET Norway has a market share of about [0-5] %.

| 19. | JET Norway's incentives are different from the four incumbents’, since, unlike them, JET Norway (i) is the only player which operates a network of purely automated fuel stations in Norway, (ii) has a pump net pricing which gives a strong and attractive signal to customers, (iii) is only active in South east Norway due to logistical difficulties which have prevented the company from expanding throughout Norway. |
| --- | --- |

19.

JET Norway's incentives are different from the four incumbents’, since, unlike them, JET Norway (i) is the only player which operates a network of purely automated fuel stations in Norway, (ii) has a pump net pricing which gives a strong and attractive signal to customers, (iii) is only active in South east Norway due to logistical difficulties which have prevented the company from expanding throughout Norway.

| 20. | JET Norway constrains the competitive behaviour of its rivals, since JET Norway (i) has a higher market share in South east Norway ([5-10] %) than at national level, (ii) is the most efficient operator in the Norwegian market with an average throughput per station which is far higher than its competitors, (iii) is profitable, despite its logistical difficulties, (iv) systematically undercuts its rivals' prices of non-automated stations by applying a price differential. |
| --- | --- |

20.

JET Norway constrains the competitive behaviour of its rivals, since JET Norway (i) has a higher market share in South east Norway ([5-10] %) than at national level, (ii) is the most efficient operator in the Norwegian market with an average throughput per station which is far higher than its competitors, (iii) is profitable, despite its logistical difficulties, (iv) systematically undercuts its rivals' prices of non-automated stations by applying a price differential.

| 21. | SH's internal documents show that SH regards JET Norway as a strong competitive constraint. |
| --- | --- |

21.

SH's internal documents show that SH regards JET Norway as a strong competitive constraint.

| 22. | JET Norway's strong competitive constraint has been confirmed by (i) the market investigation, (ii) the consumer survey and (iii) the econometric analysis relating to JET Norway's impact on the Statoil network's pricing, all carried out by the Commission. In addition the Norwegian competition authority also confirmed JET Norway's strong competitive constraint in South east Norway. |
| --- | --- |

22.

JET Norway's strong competitive constraint has been confirmed by (i) the market investigation, (ii) the consumer survey and (iii) the econometric analysis relating to JET Norway's impact on the Statoil network's pricing, all carried out by the Commission. In addition the Norwegian competition authority also confirmed JET Norway's strong competitive constraint in South east Norway.

| 23. | The Decision therefore concludes that the removal of JET Norway as an independent competitor, would give rise to unilateral effects in a context of high barriers to entry. For these reasons the Decision concludes that the transaction gives rise to serious doubts as concerns competition in the Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuels. |
| --- | --- |

23.

The Decision therefore concludes that the removal of JET Norway as an independent competitor, would give rise to unilateral effects in a context of high barriers to entry. For these reasons the Decision concludes that the transaction gives rise to serious doubts as concerns competition in the Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuels.

3.   Commitments offered by SH

| 24. | In order to remedy the competition concerns identified by the Commission, the parties submitted commitments relating to Norway and Sweden on 25 July 2008. |
| --- | --- |

24.

In order to remedy the competition concerns identified by the Commission, the parties submitted commitments relating to Norway and Sweden on 25 July 2008.

| 25. | The answers of the market test showed that, subject to an adjustment, the commitments offered by the parties were sufficient to remove the competition concerns raised by the proposed transaction. |
| --- | --- |

25.

The answers of the market test showed that, subject to an adjustment, the commitments offered by the parties were sufficient to remove the competition concerns raised by the proposed transaction.

| 26. | After being informed by the Commission on the results of the market test, the parties modified their initial commitments, by including the adjustment mentioned above, on 1 September 2008. |
| --- | --- |

26.

After being informed by the Commission on the results of the market test, the parties modified their initial commitments, by including the adjustment mentioned above, on 1 September 2008.

(a)   Content of the commitments proposed on 25 July 2008

| 27. | In Sweden, SH proposes the divestiture of a 158 unmanned stations network. This network, consisting of 118 Hydro stations and 40 JET stations, would represent a market share of about [5-10] %. |
| --- | --- |

27.

In Sweden, SH proposes the divestiture of a 158 unmanned stations network. This network, consisting of 118 Hydro stations and 40 JET stations, would represent a market share of about [5-10] %.

| 28. | In addition, SH proposes to offer the buyer the options (i) to buy the current stake (50 %) of JET Sweden in a JV (between JET Sweden and SH) which owns and operates 2 depots in Sweden, (ii) to source petrol and diesel from certain SH's depots or certain third parties depots at which SH has throughput or exchange agreements, until 31 December 2011, (iii) to be provided with arrangements to meet the compulsory storage obligations under Swedish law until 31 December 2011 and (iv) to be provided with relevant contracts with logistic operators for the distribution of refined products to JET's stations, until 31 December 2011. |
| --- | --- |

28.

In addition, SH proposes to offer the buyer the options (i) to buy the current stake (50 %) of JET Sweden in a JV (between JET Sweden and SH) which owns and operates 2 depots in Sweden, (ii) to source petrol and diesel from certain SH's depots or certain third parties depots at which SH has throughput or exchange agreements, until 31 December 2011, (iii) to be provided with arrangements to meet the compulsory storage obligations under Swedish law until 31 December 2011 and (iv) to be provided with relevant contracts with logistic operators for the distribution of refined products to JET's stations, until 31 December 2011.

| 29. | In Norway, SH would acquire JET Norway, but not exercise control over it and would resell it with appropriate transitional arrangements. Moreover, the purchaser cannot have a pre-transaction market share above 10 % on the Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuels. |
| --- | --- |

29.

In Norway, SH would acquire JET Norway, but not exercise control over it and would resell it with appropriate transitional arrangements. Moreover, the purchaser cannot have a pre-transaction market share above 10 % on the Norwegian market for retail sales of motor fuels.

| 30. | In addition, SH proposes to offer JET Norway's buyer the options (i) to buy the Swedish depot (located in Strömstad, on the Norwegian border) currently owned by JET Norway and used for its retail sales in Norway, (ii) to buy a certain volume of petrol from SH until 31 December 2011, (iii) to be provided with arrangements to meet the compulsory storage obligations under Norwegian law until 31 December 2011 and (iv) to be provided with relevant contracts with logistic operators for the distribution of refined products to JET's stations, until 31 December 2011. |
| --- | --- |

30.

In addition, SH proposes to offer JET Norway's buyer the options (i) to buy the Swedish depot (located in Strömstad, on the Norwegian border) currently owned by JET Norway and used for its retail sales in Norway, (ii) to buy a certain volume of petrol from SH until 31 December 2011, (iii) to be provided with arrangements to meet the compulsory storage obligations under Norwegian law until 31 December 2011 and (iv) to be provided with relevant contracts with logistic operators for the distribution of refined products to JET's stations, until 31 December 2011.

(b)   Assessment of these commitments

Sweden

| 31. | The proportion of respondents considering that the proposed remedy would remove the competition concerns and the proportion of those considering the contrary was balanced. The same balanced result was noted as to the viability of the network divested. |
| --- | --- |

31.

The proportion of respondents considering that the proposed remedy would remove the competition concerns and the proportion of those considering the contrary was balanced. The same balanced result was noted as to the viability of the network divested.

| 32. | The doubts expressed about the removal of competition concerns referred (i) to SH's current strong market position and (ii) to the fact that the divested network would be too small and not able to exert a competitive constraint on SH post merger |
| --- | --- |

32.

The doubts expressed about the removal of competition concerns referred (i) to SH's current strong market position and (ii) to the fact that the divested network would be too small and not able to exert a competitive constraint on SH post merger

| 33. | The main doubts expressed about the viability referred (i) to the global and the average throughputs of the newly created network and (ii) to the fact that the Hydro stations to be divested would be badly located. |
| --- | --- |

33.

The main doubts expressed about the viability referred (i) to the global and the average throughputs of the newly created network and (ii) to the fact that the Hydro stations to be divested would be badly located.

| 34. | In addition, a clear majority of respondents considered that the duration (three years) of the supply agreement offered by SH to the potential purchaser was too short. Several respondents stated that a five-year duration would be necessary. |
| --- | --- |

34.

In addition, a clear majority of respondents considered that the duration (three years) of the supply agreement offered by SH to the potential purchaser was too short. Several respondents stated that a five-year duration would be necessary.

| 35. | The Decision found that the concerns relating to both the removal of competition and the viability were not well grounded. |
| --- | --- |

35.

The Decision found that the concerns relating to both the removal of competition and the viability were not well grounded.

| 36. | Indeed, the new network (i) will have the third highest average throughput, after SH and Tanka, (ii) has a nationwide coverage, (iii) is well represented in the most populated areas and (iv) would have the ‘critical mass’ necessary to cover overhead costs and be an efficient competitor. |
| --- | --- |

36.

Indeed, the new network (i) will have the third highest average throughput, after SH and Tanka, (ii) has a nationwide coverage, (iii) is well represented in the most populated areas and (iv) would have the ‘critical mass’ necessary to cover overhead costs and be an efficient competitor.

| 37. | Finally, several respondents expressed an interest in acquiring the new network. |
| --- | --- |

37.

Finally, several respondents expressed an interest in acquiring the new network.

| 38. | On 1 September 2008 SH submitted an amended commitment proposal, offering potential purchasers of the divested network the possibility to extend the supply agreement from three to five years, until 31 December 2013. Given this extension, the length of the supply arrangements is no longer a cause for concern to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

38.

On 1 September 2008 SH submitted an amended commitment proposal, offering potential purchasers of the divested network the possibility to extend the supply agreement from three to five years, until 31 December 2013. Given this extension, the length of the supply arrangements is no longer a cause for concern to the Commission.

| 39. | Accordingly, the Decision considers that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission's serious doubts concerning Sweden. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Accordingly, the Decision considers that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission's serious doubts concerning Sweden.

Norway

| 40. | The overwhelming majority of competitors considered that the divestiture of JET Norway would establish a viable competitor and remove the competition concerns expressed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

40.

The overwhelming majority of competitors considered that the divestiture of JET Norway would establish a viable competitor and remove the competition concerns expressed by the Commission.

| 41. | Moreover, the purchaser of JET Norway will have an incentive to put a competitive constraint on SH and the other three incumbents, since the purchaser will not be allowed to have a pre-transaction market share of more than 10 % of the Norwegian market for the retail sale of motor fuels. This provision will prevent any of the other three incumbents from acquiring JET Norway. |
| --- | --- |

41.

Moreover, the purchaser of JET Norway will have an incentive to put a competitive constraint on SH and the other three incumbents, since the purchaser will not be allowed to have a pre-transaction market share of more than 10 % of the Norwegian market for the retail sale of motor fuels. This provision will prevent any of the other three incumbents from acquiring JET Norway.

| 42. | However, as in Sweden, a clear majority of respondents considered that the duration (three years) of the supply agreement offered by SH to the potential purchaser was insufficient. Several respondents stated that a five-year duration would be necessary. |
| --- | --- |

42.

However, as in Sweden, a clear majority of respondents considered that the duration (three years) of the supply agreement offered by SH to the potential purchaser was insufficient. Several respondents stated that a five-year duration would be necessary.

| 43. | On 1 September 2008 SH submitted an amended commitment proposal offering the potential purchaser of JET Norway the possibility to extend the supply agreement from three to five years, until 31 December 2013. Given this extension, the length of the supply arrangements is no longer a cause for concern to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

43.

On 1 September 2008 SH submitted an amended commitment proposal offering the potential purchaser of JET Norway the possibility to extend the supply agreement from three to five years, until 31 December 2013. Given this extension, the length of the supply arrangements is no longer a cause for concern to the Commission.

| 44. | Accordingly, the Decision considers that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission's serious doubts concerning Norway. |
| --- | --- |

44.

Accordingly, the Decision considers that the proposed remedies will remove the Commission's serious doubts concerning Norway.

V.   CONCLUSION

| 45. | For the reasons mentioned above, the Decision concludes that, subject to compliance with the commitments submitted by SH, the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

45.

For the reasons mentioned above, the Decision concludes that, subject to compliance with the commitments submitted by SH, the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1-22.

(2)  See case COMP/M.4545 — Statoil/Hydro, Commission Decision of 3 May 2007.

(3)  SH also operates retail motor fuel outlets in Poland, Russia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

---

The Court of Auditors

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/9

---

Special Report No 2/2009 ‘The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003-2007): an effective way to improve health?’

2009/C 201/07

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 2/2009 ‘The European Union’s Public Health Programme (2003-2007): an effective way to improve health?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy and a CD-ROM version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form at EU-Bookshop.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/10

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

2009/C 201/08

Aid No: XA 128/09

Member State: France

Region: Département des Yvelines

Title of aid scheme: Programme d’aides en assistance technique dans les exploitations agricoles

Legal basis:

| — | Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006,

| — | Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006, |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006,

| — | Articles L 1511-2 à L 1511-5 du Code général des collectivités territoriales, |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles L 1511-2 à L 1511-5 du Code général des collectivités territoriales,

| — | Délibération du Conseil général, |
| --- | --- |

—

Délibération du Conseil général,

| — | Convention entre la Chambre Interdépartementale de l’Agriculture d’Ile-de-France, l’État et le Conseil Général des Yvelines du 25 avril 2002 et son avenant du 20 juillet 2006. |
| --- | --- |

—

Convention entre la Chambre Interdépartementale de l’Agriculture d’Ile-de-France, l’État et le Conseil Général des Yvelines du 25 avril 2002 et son avenant du 20 juillet 2006.

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme: EUR 20 000 per year

Maximum aid intensity: 40 % of the cost of the study, grant subject to a ceiling of EUR 3 700

Date of implementation: From the date that the exemption form is published on the Commission’s website

Duration of scheme: Until 31 December 2013

Objective of the aid: This aid scheme, which falls within the scope of Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006, aims to provide technical assistance to farmers in the department of Yvelines.

It involves studies or technical assistance in the following areas:

the preservation of or improvements to environmental (water, air, ground) quality,

modernisation of specialised farming,

diversification and better use of regional production.

These studies and advisory services provided by third parties are not continuous or periodic and are not related to the enterprise’s usual operating expenditure. They can take a variety of forms:

marketing, legal or profitability studies,

studies on how to improve quality (ISO, HACCP, other reference systems, etc.),

feasibility studies (a strategic analysis of a specific project, a study prior to a project, etc.).

Fees linked to building permit instructions are excluded.

In accordance with Article 15(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 of 15 December 2006, the aid will not be paid directly to farmers benefiting from technical assistance services

Sector(s) concerned: All farms operating in the department of Yvelines

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Monsieur le président du Conseil général des Yvelines |
| --- |
| Hôtel du département |
| 2 place André Mignot |
| 78012 Versailles Cedex |
| FRANCE |

Monsieur le président du Conseil général des Yvelines

Hôtel du département

2 place André Mignot

78012 Versailles Cedex

FRANCE

Website: http://www.yvelines.fr/yvelines_eco/documents/aide_assist_tech_exploit_agri.pdf

Other information: —

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/11

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5583 — PartnerRe/Paris Re)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 201/09

| 1. | On 18 August 2009, 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 PartnerRe Ltd (‘PartnerRe’, Bermuda) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control over Paris Re Holdings Limited (‘Paris Re’, Switzerland), by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 18 August 2009, 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 PartnerRe Ltd (‘PartnerRe’, Bermuda) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control over Paris Re Holdings Limited (‘Paris Re’, Switzerland), by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | PartnerRe: global reinsurance company, listed on New York Stock Exchange, providing multi-line reinsurance to insurance companies, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

PartnerRe: global reinsurance company, listed on New York Stock Exchange, providing multi-line reinsurance to insurance companies,

| — | Paris Re: French-listed, worldwide reinsurer. |
| --- | --- |

—

Paris Re: French-listed, worldwide reinsurer.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in 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 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5583 — PartnerRe/Paris Re, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5583 — PartnerRe/Paris Re, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

---

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5555 — Novartis/Ebewe Spezial-Pharma Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 201/10

| 1. | On 18 August 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the Novartis Group, Switzerland, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the Ebewe SP Group, Austria by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 18 August 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the Novartis Group, Switzerland, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the Ebewe SP Group, Austria by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Novartis Group: active in the development, production and distribution of medical products, including prescription drugs, over-the-counter (‘OTC’) drugs, human vaccines and animal health products, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Novartis Group: active in the development, production and distribution of medical products, including prescription drugs, over-the-counter (‘OTC’) drugs, human vaccines and animal health products,

| — | for Ebewe SP Group: active in the manufacture and distribution of specialty generic pharmaceutical products as well as in contract manufacturing of finished dose pharmaceuticals for other pharmaceutical companies. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Ebewe SP Group: active in the manufacture and distribution of specialty generic pharmaceutical products as well as in contract manufacturing of finished dose pharmaceuticals for other pharmaceutical companies.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5555 — Novartis/Ebewe Spezial-Pharma Holding, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5555 — Novartis/Ebewe Spezial-Pharma Holding, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

| 26.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5580 — Blackrock/Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 201/11

| 1. | On 18 August 2009, 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 BlackRock, Inc (‘BlackRock’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Limited (‘BGI’, UK) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 18 August 2009, 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 BlackRock, Inc (‘BlackRock’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Limited (‘BGI’, UK) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | BlackRock: a US publicly traded company active in the provision of global asset management, risk management and advisory services to institutional and retail clients, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

BlackRock: a US publicly traded company active in the provision of global asset management, risk management and advisory services to institutional and retail clients,

| — | BGI: is a UK company and is currently organized as a business division of the Barclays group. BGI provides global asset management products and services primarily to institutional clients. |
| --- | --- |

—

BGI: is a UK company and is currently organized as a business division of the Barclays group. BGI provides global asset management products and services primarily to institutional clients.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5580 — Blackrock/Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5580 — Blackrock/Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---