# Official Journal C 154/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.154.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 154 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5531 May 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.154.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 154

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5531 May 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 154/01 | Commission Opinion of 30 May 2012 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the interim storage facilities for intermediate-level waste and spent fuel at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station site, located in Somerset, United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

2012/C 154/01

Commission Opinion of 30 May 2012 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the interim storage facilities for intermediate-level waste and spent fuel at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station site, located in Somerset, United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

1

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 154/02 | Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.6471 — Outokumpu/Inoxum) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 154/02

Initiation of proceedings (Case COMP/M.6471 — Outokumpu/Inoxum) (
  1
  )

1

2

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 154/03 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2012/C 154/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung — Rapporteur: Italy | 4 |
| 2012/C 154/05 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/M.6214 — Seagate/HDD Business of Samsung | 7 |
| 2012/C 154/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 19 October 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate/HDD Business of Samsung) (notified under document C(2011) 7592)
   (
  1
  ) | 8 |
| 2012/C 154/07 | Commission notice concerning the date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation of origin between the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey | 13 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 154/08 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 15 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2012/C 154/09 | Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)) | 16 |
| 2012/C 154/10 | Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)) | 18 |
| 2012/C 154/11 | View of the representatives of the EFTA States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority presented at the meeting of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung — Rapporteur: Italy | 20 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 154/03

Euro exchange rates

3

2012/C 154/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung — Rapporteur: Italy

4

2012/C 154/05

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/M.6214 — Seagate/HDD Business of Samsung

7

2012/C 154/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 19 October 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate/HDD Business of Samsung) (notified under document C(2011) 7592)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2011) 7592)

1

8

2012/C 154/07

Commission notice concerning the date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation of origin between the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey

13

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 154/08

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

15

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2012/C 154/09

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))

16

2012/C 154/10

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))

18

2012/C 154/11

View of the representatives of the EFTA States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority presented at the meeting of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung — Rapporteur: Italy

20

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 154/12 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6614 — Samsung Electronics/Samsung Mobile Display) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 23 |
| 2012/C 154/13 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6469 — Tognum/TMH/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 25 |
| 2012/C 154/14 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group) (
  1
  ) | 26 |
| 2012/C 154/15 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6610 — CVC/AlixPartners) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 27 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 154/12

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6614 — Samsung Electronics/Samsung Mobile Display) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

23

2012/C 154/13

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6469 — Tognum/TMH/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

25

2012/C 154/14

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group) (
  1
  )

1

26

2012/C 154/15

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6610 — CVC/AlixPartners) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

27

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2012/C 154/16 | Corrigendum to the list of appointments made by the Council — January, February, March and April 2012 (social field) (This text annuls and replaces that published in OJ C 135, 9.5.2012, p. 6) | 28 |
| 2012/C 154/17 | Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (OJ C 147, 25.5.2012) | 32 |

Corrigenda

2012/C 154/16

Corrigendum to the list of appointments made by the Council — January, February, March and April 2012 (social field) (This text annuls and replaces that published in OJ C 135, 9.5.2012, p. 6)

28

2012/C 154/17

Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (OJ C 147, 25.5.2012)

32

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 30 May 2012

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the interim storage facilities for intermediate-level waste and spent fuel at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station site, located in Somerset, United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the English text is authentic)

2012/C 154/01

The assessment below is carried out under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, without prejudice to any additional assessments to be carried out under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the obligations stemming from it and from secondary legislation.

On 27 January 2012, the European Commission received from the Government of the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the interim storage facilities for intermediate-level waste and spent fuel at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station site, located in Somerset, United Kingdom.

On the basis of these data, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance from the site to the nearest Member States is 185 km for France and 250 km for Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance from the site to the nearest Member States is 185 km for France and 250 km for Ireland.

| 2. | Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents are unlikely to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that is significant from the point of view of health. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under normal operating conditions, the discharges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents are unlikely to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that is significant from the point of view of health.

| 3. | Secondary solid low-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before transfer to disposal facilities authorised by the United Kingdom regulatory authorities. Non-radioactive solid waste or residual materials will be released for disposal as conventional waste or for reuse or recycling in compliance with the criteria which are consistent with Directive 96/29/Euratom. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Secondary solid low-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before transfer to disposal facilities authorised by the United Kingdom regulatory authorities. Non-radioactive solid waste or residual materials will be released for disposal as conventional waste or for reuse or recycling in compliance with the criteria which are consistent with Directive 96/29/Euratom.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population in another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population in another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form from the interim storage facilities for intermediate-level waste and spent fuel at the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station site, located in Somerset, United Kingdom, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State that would be significant from the point of view of health.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 2012.

For the Commission

Günther OETTINGER

Member of the Commission

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/2

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.6471 — Outokumpu/Inoxum)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 154/02

On 21 May 2012, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

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

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 / 22967244) or by post, under reference COMP/M.6471 — Outokumpu/Inoxum, to the following address:

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

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 May 2012

2012/C 154/03

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2438 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 98,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4312 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79775 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9555 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2010 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5145 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,658 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 298,95 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6982 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3873 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4675 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2930 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2729 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2784 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6551 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6402 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5948 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 465,19 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,5086 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8920 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5555 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 976,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9329 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,116 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,5650 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,627 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4921 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3868 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,9420 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2438

JPY

Japanese yen

98,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4312

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79775

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9555

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2010

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5145

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,658

HUF

Hungarian forint

298,95

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6982

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3873

RON

Romanian leu

4,4675

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2930

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2729

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2784

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6551

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6402

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5948

KRW

South Korean won

1 465,19

ZAR

South African rand

10,5086

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8920

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5555

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 976,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9329

PHP

Philippine peso

54,116

RUB

Russian rouble

40,5650

THB

Thai baht

39,627

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4921

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3868

INR

Indian rupee

69,9420

---

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

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung

Rapporteur: Italy

2012/C 154/04

Concentration

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction has an EU dimension pursuant to Article 1(3) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction has an EU dimension pursuant to Article 1(3) of the Merger Regulation.

Market definition

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets in the draft decision.
  In particular, concerning the product market definition, the Advisory Committee agrees that the impact of the proposed transaction must be assessed on the following markets:






  (a) | the market for 3,5′′ mission-critical enterprise HDDs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets in the draft decision.

In particular, concerning the product market definition, the Advisory Committee agrees that the impact of the proposed transaction must be assessed on the following markets:

(a)

the market for 3,5′′ mission-critical enterprise HDDs;

| (b) | the market for 3,5′′ business-critical enterprise HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the market for 3,5′′ business-critical enterprise HDDs;

| (c) | the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs;

| (d) | the market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs;

| (e) | the market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs;

| (f) | the market for 2,5′′ CE HDDs; and |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the market for 2,5′′ CE HDDs; and

| (g) | the XHDD market. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

the XHDD market.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the geographic market definition for:






  (a) | HDDs; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the geographic market definition for:

(a)

HDDs; and

| (b) | XHDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

XHDDs.

Counterfactual

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of the competitive assessment of the proposed transaction, the most appropriate approach is to adopt the priority rule (‘first come, first served’) based on the date of notification. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of the competitive assessment of the proposed transaction, the most appropriate approach is to adopt the priority rule (‘first come, first served’) based on the date of notification.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed transaction must be assessed in the light of the competitive situation that prevailed at the time of its notification, i.e. without taking into consideration the transaction in Case COMP/M.6203 Western Digital/Viviti Technologies (Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, recently renamed Viviti Technologies). |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed transaction must be assessed in the light of the competitive situation that prevailed at the time of its notification, i.e. without taking into consideration the transaction in Case COMP/M.6203 Western Digital/Viviti Technologies (Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, recently renamed Viviti Technologies).

Competitive assessment

Non-coordinated effects

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's view that non-coordinated effects must be assessed on the following markets:






  (a) | the worldwide market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's view that non-coordinated effects must be assessed on the following markets:

(a)

the worldwide market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs;

| (b) | the worldwide market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the worldwide market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs;

| (c) | the worldwide market for 3,5′′ business-critical enterprise HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the worldwide market for 3,5′′ business-critical enterprise HDDs;

| (d) | the worldwide market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs; and |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the worldwide market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs; and

| (e) | the EEA-wide XHDD market. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the EEA-wide XHDD market.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that post-transaction customers will have the possibility to source from at least three strong HDD suppliers and that the proposed transaction will not impact the ability of customers to multi-source and switch suppliers in all of the relevant HDD markets. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that post-transaction customers will have the possibility to source from at least three strong HDD suppliers and that the proposed transaction will not impact the ability of customers to multi-source and switch suppliers in all of the relevant HDD markets.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that Seagate and Samsung HDD are not particularly close competitors in any of the relevant HDD markets. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that Seagate and Samsung HDD are not particularly close competitors in any of the relevant HDD markets.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the proposed transaction will not eliminate an important competitive force due to Samsung’s less competitive and innovative abilities. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the proposed transaction will not eliminate an important competitive force due to Samsung’s less competitive and innovative abilities.

| 11. | As regards the EEA-wide XHDD market, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that:






  (a) | the acquisition of Samsung would not considerably increase Seagate's market position; |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

As regards the EEA-wide XHDD market, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that:

(a)

the acquisition of Samsung would not considerably increase Seagate's market position;

| (b) | even considering the current market trend of HDD manufacturers gaining rapidly market shares to the detriment of the non-integrated XHDD suppliers, three credible alternative suppliers would remain present in the EEA-wide XHDD market after the transaction; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

even considering the current market trend of HDD manufacturers gaining rapidly market shares to the detriment of the non-integrated XHDD suppliers, three credible alternative suppliers would remain present in the EEA-wide XHDD market after the transaction; and

| (c) | the merged entity will have neither the ability nor the incentive to foreclose a significant part of the market. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the merged entity will have neither the ability nor the incentive to foreclose a significant part of the market.

| 12. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to non-coordinated effects that would significantly impede effective competition on the worldwide HDD markets for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, 2,5′′ mobile HDDs, 3,5′′ business-critical HDDs, and 3,5′′ CE HDDs nor on the EEA-wide XHDD market. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to non-coordinated effects that would significantly impede effective competition on the worldwide HDD markets for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, 2,5′′ mobile HDDs, 3,5′′ business-critical HDDs, and 3,5′′ CE HDDs nor on the EEA-wide XHDD market.

Coordinated effects

| 13. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that it is likely that the proposed transaction will not increase the ability of the remaining HDD suppliers to reach terms of coordination. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that it is likely that the proposed transaction will not increase the ability of the remaining HDD suppliers to reach terms of coordination.

| 14. | In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s view that:






  (a) | the removal of Samsung HDD does not cause a material merger-specific effect in a number of relevant markets due to Samsung’s lack of or insignificant presence on the markets for 3,5′′ business-critical enterprise HDDs and 3,5′′ CE HDDs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

14.

In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s view that:

(a)

the removal of Samsung HDD does not cause a material merger-specific effect in a number of relevant markets due to Samsung’s lack of or insignificant presence on the markets for 3,5′′ business-critical enterprise HDDs and 3,5′′ CE HDDs;

| (b) | on the 3,5′′ desktop HDD market, Samsung is not a particularly strong innovative force or a particularly strong competitor and therefore the effect of Samsung's removal is likely to be limited with regard to coordinated effects; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

on the 3,5′′ desktop HDD market, Samsung is not a particularly strong innovative force or a particularly strong competitor and therefore the effect of Samsung's removal is likely to be limited with regard to coordinated effects;

| (c) | on the 3,5′′ desktop HDD market the level of post-merger asymmetry would remain high; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

on the 3,5′′ desktop HDD market the level of post-merger asymmetry would remain high;

| (d) | it appears likely that HGST would have strong incentives not to participate in any coordination in the 3,5′′ desktop HDD market. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

it appears likely that HGST would have strong incentives not to participate in any coordination in the 3,5′′ desktop HDD market.

| 15. | The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission’s conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition stemming from coordinated effects. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission’s conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition stemming from coordinated effects.

Vertical effects

| 16. | Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for head components, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for head components, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition.

| 17. | Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for media components, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for media components, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition.

Conclusion

| 18. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

| 19. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the notified concentration must be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

19.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the notified concentration must be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

| 20. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

20.

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

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/7

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/M.6214 — Seagate/HDD Business of Samsung

2012/C 154/05

On 19 April 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Merger Regulation’) by which Seagate Technology Public Limited Company (‘Seagate’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the hard disk drive (‘HDD’) business of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (‘the Samsung HDD business’) by way of purchase of assets.

Upon examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area. On 30 May 2011, the Commission accordingly initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

The results of the in-depth market investigation did not confirm the serious doubts of the previous phase. The Commission considers that the proposed transaction does not significantly impede effective competition in the relevant markets. The notified concentration is therefore cleared without issuing a Statement of Objections pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation.

I received no request of procedural nature from the parties to the transaction. One third party, however, submitted to me a request for access to the file, after its initial request had been rejected by the team in charge of the case at DG Competition. I rejected such request since third parties do not have the right of access to the file in merger proceedings (3). When they apply to be heard, third parties showing sufficient interest only have the right to be informed by the Commission of the nature and subject matter of the proceedings (4). In any event, in the present case, the third party requesting access to the file did not apply to be heard.

In view thereof, I consider that the right to be heard of all participants in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 5 October 2011.

Wouter WILS

---

(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

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ‘Community’ by ‘Union’ and ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’. The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this report.

2

(3)  Only the notifying party and the ‘other involved parties’ (within the meaning of Article 11(b) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004) have such a right in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1) (‘Regulation (EC) No 802/2004’).

3

(4)  Article 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004.

4

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/8

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 19 October 2011

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

(Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate/HDD Business of Samsung)

(notified under document C(2011) 7592)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 154/06

On 19 October 2011, 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)
  (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Merger Regulation’), and in particular Article 8(1) 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/comm/competition/index_en.html

I.   THE PARTIES

| (1) | Seagate Technology Public Limited Company (‘Seagate’, US) designs, manufactures and sells a broad range of computer storage devices, consisting mostly of hard disk drives (‘HDDs’) and external hard disk drives (‘XHDDs’). Its operations are vertically-integrated upstream in the manufacturing of key components, such as read/write heads and thin-film recording media. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Seagate Technology Public Limited Company (‘Seagate’, US) designs, manufactures and sells a broad range of computer storage devices, consisting mostly of hard disk drives (‘HDDs’) and external hard disk drives (‘XHDDs’). Its operations are vertically-integrated upstream in the manufacturing of key components, such as read/write heads and thin-film recording media.

| (2) | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (‘Samsung’, South Korea) is active in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital media. The HDD Business of Samsung (hereinafter ‘Samsung HDD’) designs, manufactures, markets and sells HDDs and XHDDs. Samsung HDD is not vertically-integrated upstream in the manufacturing of components. Although Samsung is also active in solid state drives (‘SSDs’), this business will not be transferred to Seagate. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (‘Samsung’, South Korea) is active in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital media. The HDD Business of Samsung (hereinafter ‘Samsung HDD’) designs, manufactures, markets and sells HDDs and XHDDs. Samsung HDD is not vertically-integrated upstream in the manufacturing of components. Although Samsung is also active in solid state drives (‘SSDs’), this business will not be transferred to Seagate.

II.   THE OPERATION

| (3) | On 19 April 2011, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Seagate, through its subsidiary Seagate Technology Public Limited Company, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the HDD business of Samsung by way of purchase of assets. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 19 April 2011, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Seagate, through its subsidiary Seagate Technology Public Limited Company, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the HDD business of Samsung by way of purchase of assets.

| (4) | The transaction concerns the acquisition by Seagate of sole control over the HDD Business of Samsung. The business to be acquired consists of substantially all tangible and intangible assets used exclusively by Samsung in the research and development, manufacture and sale of HDDs and XHDDs which are owned or leased by Samsung. The transaction constitutes therefore a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The transaction concerns the acquisition by Seagate of sole control over the HDD Business of Samsung. The business to be acquired consists of substantially all tangible and intangible assets used exclusively by Samsung in the research and development, manufacture and sale of HDDs and XHDDs which are owned or leased by Samsung. The transaction constitutes therefore a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

| (5) | The transaction has an EU dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The transaction has an EU dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

III.   SUMMARY

A.   Analytical framework

| (6) | Another concentration affecting the same markets, namely the acquisition by Western Digital (‘WD’) of the HDD and SSD businesses of Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (‘HGST’), was notified to the Commission on 20 April 2011, one day after the present transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Another concentration affecting the same markets, namely the acquisition by Western Digital (‘WD’) of the HDD and SSD businesses of Hitachi Global Storage Technologies (‘HGST’), was notified to the Commission on 20 April 2011, one day after the present transaction.

| (7) | Assessing the competitive effects of a proposed concentration under the Merger Regulation involves a comparison of the competitive conditions that would result from the notified merger with the conditions that would have prevailed in absence of the merger. In principle, the competitive conditions existing at the time of notification constitute the relevant framework of comparison for evaluating the effects of a concentration. However, in some circumstances the Commission may take into account future changes to the market that can reasonably be predicted. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Assessing the competitive effects of a proposed concentration under the Merger Regulation involves a comparison of the competitive conditions that would result from the notified merger with the conditions that would have prevailed in absence of the merger. In principle, the competitive conditions existing at the time of notification constitute the relevant framework of comparison for evaluating the effects of a concentration. However, in some circumstances the Commission may take into account future changes to the market that can reasonably be predicted.

| (8) | It is inherent in the general system of the Merger Regulation that a party that is the first to notify a concentration which, assessed on its own merits, would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part thereof, is entitled to have its operation declared compatible with the internal market within the applicable time limits. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to take into account future changes to the market conditions resulting from concentrations subsequently notified. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

It is inherent in the general system of the Merger Regulation that a party that is the first to notify a concentration which, assessed on its own merits, would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part thereof, is entitled to have its operation declared compatible with the internal market within the applicable time limits. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to take into account future changes to the market conditions resulting from concentrations subsequently notified.

| (9) | The ‘first come, first served’ approach is the only one that ensures sufficient legal certainty and objectivity. Ensuring legal certainty is one of the primary aims of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The ‘first come, first served’ approach is the only one that ensures sufficient legal certainty and objectivity. Ensuring legal certainty is one of the primary aims of the Merger Regulation.

| (10) | Furthermore, under the scheme of the Merger Regulation, the date of notification is the most appropriate basis for applying the priority rule. It is a clear and objective criterion, determined in all cases in accordance with the rules of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004, which fits into a notification-based system of merger control. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Furthermore, under the scheme of the Merger Regulation, the date of notification is the most appropriate basis for applying the priority rule. It is a clear and objective criterion, determined in all cases in accordance with the rules of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004, which fits into a notification-based system of merger control.

| (11) | Consistent with its recent practice, the Commission has decided to assess the present transaction according to a priority rule (‘first come, first served’) based on the date of notification. Therefore, in view of the dates of notification, the present transaction is assessed independently from the WD/HGST transaction taking into account as starting point of the Commission's assessment a market structure with the following HDD suppliers: Seagate, WD, HGST, Toshiba, and Samsung HDD. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Consistent with its recent practice, the Commission has decided to assess the present transaction according to a priority rule (‘first come, first served’) based on the date of notification. Therefore, in view of the dates of notification, the present transaction is assessed independently from the WD/HGST transaction taking into account as starting point of the Commission's assessment a market structure with the following HDD suppliers: Seagate, WD, HGST, Toshiba, and Samsung HDD.

B.   The relevant market

1.   Introduction

| (12) | HDDs are devices that use one or more rotating disks with magnetic surfaces (media) to store and allow access to data. HDDs provide non-volatile data storage, which means that the data remains present when power is no longer applied to the device. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

HDDs are devices that use one or more rotating disks with magnetic surfaces (media) to store and allow access to data. HDDs provide non-volatile data storage, which means that the data remains present when power is no longer applied to the device.

| (13) | The main components of a hard drive are the head disk assembly (‘HDA’) and the printed circuit board assembly (‘PCBA’). Toshiba and Samsung HDD purchase major components such as heads and media from third party manufacturers, such as TDK for heads and Showa Denko for media. Other suppliers, namely Seagate, WD and HGST, self-supply the large majority of these key components. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The main components of a hard drive are the head disk assembly (‘HDA’) and the printed circuit board assembly (‘PCBA’). Toshiba and Samsung HDD purchase major components such as heads and media from third party manufacturers, such as TDK for heads and Showa Denko for media. Other suppliers, namely Seagate, WD and HGST, self-supply the large majority of these key components.

| (14) | Differentiation of HDDs is possible according to their technical characteristics, such as size (3,5′′, 2,5′′, 1,8′′ form factors), rotational speed (seek time), storage capacity and the type of interface. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Differentiation of HDDs is possible according to their technical characteristics, such as size (3,5′′, 2,5′′, 1,8′′ form factors), rotational speed (seek time), storage capacity and the type of interface.

| (15) | Further, HDDs are customarily categorised by reference to their end use, in particular: |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Further, HDDs are customarily categorised by reference to their end use, in particular:

(a)   Enterprise HDDs

| (16) | Enterprise HDDs are used mainly in servers and enterprise storage systems. Enterprise HDDs can be further segmented in: (i) mission critical HDDs (employed in high performance servers or storage arrays which require 99,999 % reliability); and (ii) business critical HDDs (used in the large storage facilities or server farms of Internet companies which run 24/7). |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Enterprise HDDs are used mainly in servers and enterprise storage systems. Enterprise HDDs can be further segmented in: (i) mission critical HDDs (employed in high performance servers or storage arrays which require 99,999 % reliability); and (ii) business critical HDDs (used in the large storage facilities or server farms of Internet companies which run 24/7).

(b)   Desktop HDDs

| (17) | Desktop HDDs are incorporated in personal computers intended for regular use at a single location (homes, businesses and multi-user networks). Nearly all HDDs for desktop applications are based on the 3,5′′ form factor, which offers the highest storage capacity with the lowest price per GB. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Desktop HDDs are incorporated in personal computers intended for regular use at a single location (homes, businesses and multi-user networks). Nearly all HDDs for desktop applications are based on the 3,5′′ form factor, which offers the highest storage capacity with the lowest price per GB.

(c)   Mobile HDDs

| (18) | Mobile HDDs are incorporated primarily in notebook computers and other mobile devices. Individuals use mobile computers both in and away from homes and businesses. Most mobile HDDs are based on the 2,5′′ form factor. They are generally more expensive and have less capacity than 3,5′′ desktop HDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Mobile HDDs are incorporated primarily in notebook computers and other mobile devices. Individuals use mobile computers both in and away from homes and businesses. Most mobile HDDs are based on the 2,5′′ form factor. They are generally more expensive and have less capacity than 3,5′′ desktop HDDs.

(d)   CE HDDs

| (19) | CE HDDs are used in: (i) digital video recorders (‘DVRs’) and satellite and cable set-top boxes (‘STBs’); and (ii) game consoles. HDDs supplied for CE applications include both 3,5′′ and 2,5′′ form factor drives as well as a small volume of 1,8′′ drives (2). As opposed to HDDs used in PC applications (whether desktop or mobile), 2,5′′ and 3,5′′ HDDs used in CE products are provided with specific firmware codes customised according to the specific application purpose. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

CE HDDs are used in: (i) digital video recorders (‘DVRs’) and satellite and cable set-top boxes (‘STBs’); and (ii) game consoles. HDDs supplied for CE applications include both 3,5′′ and 2,5′′ form factor drives as well as a small volume of 1,8′′ drives (2). As opposed to HDDs used in PC applications (whether desktop or mobile), 2,5′′ and 3,5′′ HDDs used in CE products are provided with specific firmware codes customised according to the specific application purpose.

2.   Different HDDs markets according to form factor and end-use

| (20) | The Commission's investigation revealed that there is no demand-side substitutability across all HDDs since the various end-use applications where HDDs are incorporated largely determine the technical requirements of HDDs (capacity, interface, rpm and form factor). In addition, within the same end-use application HDDs with different form factors (namely 3,5′′ and 2,5′′) are not substitutable from a customer stand-point. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The Commission's investigation revealed that there is no demand-side substitutability across all HDDs since the various end-use applications where HDDs are incorporated largely determine the technical requirements of HDDs (capacity, interface, rpm and form factor). In addition, within the same end-use application HDDs with different form factors (namely 3,5′′ and 2,5′′) are not substitutable from a customer stand-point.

| (21) | HDDs employed in different end-use applications are also subject to different industry dynamics and different supply chain models. The Commission's investigation also indicated that there is no sufficient supply-side substitutability across all types of HDDs in terms of effectiveness and immediacy. In the absence of such supply-side substitution, the market cannot be defined in a broader manner. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

HDDs employed in different end-use applications are also subject to different industry dynamics and different supply chain models. The Commission's investigation also indicated that there is no sufficient supply-side substitutability across all types of HDDs in terms of effectiveness and immediacy. In the absence of such supply-side substitution, the market cannot be defined in a broader manner.

| (22) | The Commission defined the following relevant product markets: (i) enterprise mission critical HDDs (3); (ii) 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs; (iii) 3,5′′ desktop HDDs; (iv) 3,5′′ consumer electronics (‘CE’) HDDs; (v) 2,5′′ mobile HDDs; and (vi) 2,5′′ CE HDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The Commission defined the following relevant product markets: (i) enterprise mission critical HDDs (3); (ii) 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs; (iii) 3,5′′ desktop HDDs; (iv) 3,5′′ consumer electronics (‘CE’) HDDs; (v) 2,5′′ mobile HDDs; and (vi) 2,5′′ CE HDDs.

| (23) | The Commission's investigation and previous decisions indicated that all the HDD markets are worldwide in scope. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The Commission's investigation and previous decisions indicated that all the HDD markets are worldwide in scope.

3.   XHDDs

| (24) | External hard disk drives (XHDDs) allow PC users to supplement the storage space of their PC systems, their home and small office networks, or their CE devices. They provide stand-alone storage solutions. XHDDs use HDDs as inputs. Unlike internal HDDs, XHDDs are sold as finished products on the merchant market and substantially target different customers, mainly end users of PC and CE devices as opposed to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). XHDDs are a predominantly branded business. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

External hard disk drives (XHDDs) allow PC users to supplement the storage space of their PC systems, their home and small office networks, or their CE devices. They provide stand-alone storage solutions. XHDDs use HDDs as inputs. Unlike internal HDDs, XHDDs are sold as finished products on the merchant market and substantially target different customers, mainly end users of PC and CE devices as opposed to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). XHDDs are a predominantly branded business.

| (25) | The Commission considers that XHDDs constitute a separate product market that is downstream of HDDs. The Commission further considers that the XHDD market is currently regional and therefore must be assessed at the EEA-wide level as the customers as well as the customer mix differ significantly between the regions. Also the identity and numbers of XHDD suppliers vary across the different regions in the world. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission considers that XHDDs constitute a separate product market that is downstream of HDDs. The Commission further considers that the XHDD market is currently regional and therefore must be assessed at the EEA-wide level as the customers as well as the customer mix differ significantly between the regions. Also the identity and numbers of XHDD suppliers vary across the different regions in the world.

C.   Competitive assessment

Non-coordinated effects

| (26) | According to its own estimates, Seagate is currently the largest HDD supplier in terms of revenues, and a close second to WD in terms of volume for HDDs overall. It is the largest supplier on the markets for enterprise mission critical HDDs ([60-70] % market share in revenues), enterprise business critical HDDs ([30-40] % market share in revenues) and 3,5′′ CE HDDs ([40-50] % market share in revenues), the second largest supplier on the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs ([30-40] % market share in revenues) and the third largest supplier on the market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs ([10-20] % market share in revenues). |
| --- | --- |

(26)

According to its own estimates, Seagate is currently the largest HDD supplier in terms of revenues, and a close second to WD in terms of volume for HDDs overall. It is the largest supplier on the markets for enterprise mission critical HDDs ([60-70] % market share in revenues), enterprise business critical HDDs ([30-40] % market share in revenues) and 3,5′′ CE HDDs ([40-50] % market share in revenues), the second largest supplier on the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs ([30-40] % market share in revenues) and the third largest supplier on the market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs ([10-20] % market share in revenues).

| (27) | The activities of Seagate and Samsung HDD overlap in all the HDD markets with the exception of the market for enterprise mission critical HDDs (where Samsung is not present) which is therefore not assessed for the purpose of the present decision. As a result of the proposed transaction, Seagate will become the leading player on all the HDDs markets with the exception of the market for 2,5′′ CE HDDs which is not affected (4). |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The activities of Seagate and Samsung HDD overlap in all the HDD markets with the exception of the market for enterprise mission critical HDDs (where Samsung is not present) which is therefore not assessed for the purpose of the present decision. As a result of the proposed transaction, Seagate will become the leading player on all the HDDs markets with the exception of the market for 2,5′′ CE HDDs which is not affected (4).

| (28) | Market structure and competitive dynamics vary for each of the relevant HDDs markets. A number of factors are nonetheless relevant for the Commission's competitive assessment for each of these markets, as explained herein below. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Market structure and competitive dynamics vary for each of the relevant HDDs markets. A number of factors are nonetheless relevant for the Commission's competitive assessment for each of these markets, as explained herein below.

| (29) | The Commission finds that products on the HDD markets have features of differentiated products rather than pure commodity products. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The Commission finds that products on the HDD markets have features of differentiated products rather than pure commodity products.

| (30) | The Commission's investigation indicated that multi-sourcing is very important for HDD customers for reasons of security of supply as well as to receive competitively priced supply. The Commission's investigation further pointed out that three qualified and reliable suppliers would be enough for an effective multi-sourcing policy. Since the Commission's investigation confirmed that both WD and HGST are qualified as valid and reliable HDD suppliers by HDD customers, it follows that post-transaction the ability of OEMs to multisource will not be impacted. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The Commission's investigation indicated that multi-sourcing is very important for HDD customers for reasons of security of supply as well as to receive competitively priced supply. The Commission's investigation further pointed out that three qualified and reliable suppliers would be enough for an effective multi-sourcing policy. Since the Commission's investigation confirmed that both WD and HGST are qualified as valid and reliable HDD suppliers by HDD customers, it follows that post-transaction the ability of OEMs to multisource will not be impacted.

| (31) | Seagate and Samsung HDD are not close competitors. Samsung HDD and Seagate have different customer groups. Samsung HDD does not appear to be a significant supplier to OEMs as compared to Seagate and the other HDD competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

Seagate and Samsung HDD are not close competitors. Samsung HDD and Seagate have different customer groups. Samsung HDD does not appear to be a significant supplier to OEMs as compared to Seagate and the other HDD competitors.

| (32) | Vertical integration upstream confers a significant competitive advantage to HDD suppliers. While Seagate is vertically integrated, Samsung HDD has to rely on a third party for its supply of key HDD components. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Vertical integration upstream confers a significant competitive advantage to HDD suppliers. While Seagate is vertically integrated, Samsung HDD has to rely on a third party for its supply of key HDD components.

| (33) | The Commission's investigation indicated that there would be no likelihood of timely and sufficient entry by a new HDD competitor. In any event, the proposed transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in any of the HDD markets. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The Commission's investigation indicated that there would be no likelihood of timely and sufficient entry by a new HDD competitor. In any event, the proposed transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in any of the HDD markets.

| (34) | For the reasons explained hereinafter, the proposed transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in any of the worldwide HDD markets or on the EEA-wide XHDD market. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

For the reasons explained hereinafter, the proposed transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in any of the worldwide HDD markets or on the EEA-wide XHDD market.

| (35) | The transaction will lead to a reduction in the number of suppliers from four to three on the markets for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs and 3,5′′ CE HDDs, and from five to four suppliers on the markets for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs and 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

The transaction will lead to a reduction in the number of suppliers from four to three on the markets for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs and 3,5′′ CE HDDs, and from five to four suppliers on the markets for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs and 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs.

| (36) | On the markets for 3,5′′ CE HDDs and 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs, the transaction will only lead to a small increment in Seagate's market share as Samsung's market share is very small (less than 2 %). |
| --- | --- |

(36)

On the markets for 3,5′′ CE HDDs and 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs, the transaction will only lead to a small increment in Seagate's market share as Samsung's market share is very small (less than 2 %).

| (37) | The Commission's investigation revealed that although the merged entity will enjoy a substantial market share on the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, it will continue to face at least two strong competitors with significant market shares, namely WD and HGST. Moreover, Seagate and Samsung are not particularly close competitors. With three remaining suppliers, customers will retain sufficient possibilities to switch suppliers and effectively multi-source. In case of a price increase, HGST and WD are likely to have the ability and the incentive to increase supply. Lastly, the merger does not eliminate a particularly important competitive force on the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The Commission's investigation revealed that although the merged entity will enjoy a substantial market share on the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, it will continue to face at least two strong competitors with significant market shares, namely WD and HGST. Moreover, Seagate and Samsung are not particularly close competitors. With three remaining suppliers, customers will retain sufficient possibilities to switch suppliers and effectively multi-source. In case of a price increase, HGST and WD are likely to have the ability and the incentive to increase supply. Lastly, the merger does not eliminate a particularly important competitive force on the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs.

| (38) | These findings are a fortiori valid for the market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs where after the transaction there will remain four competitors and, in addition to WD and HGST, the merged entity will also face Toshiba as a competitor. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

These findings are a fortiori valid for the market for 2,5′′ mobile HDDs where after the transaction there will remain four competitors and, in addition to WD and HGST, the merged entity will also face Toshiba as a competitor.

| (39) | As regards the EEA XHDD market, this market is growing faster than the internal HDD markets. On the supply side, the XHDD market seems to be less concentrated than the HDDs markets. In addition to the HDD producers, there are alternative XHDD suppliers which are not vertically-integrated upstream in the manufacturing of HDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

As regards the EEA XHDD market, this market is growing faster than the internal HDD markets. On the supply side, the XHDD market seems to be less concentrated than the HDDs markets. In addition to the HDD producers, there are alternative XHDD suppliers which are not vertically-integrated upstream in the manufacturing of HDDs.

| (40) | The Commission's investigation indicated that: (i) Seagate is only the second biggest player in the market ([10-20] %) and shares its second position with Iomega; (ii) the acquisition of Samsung HDD which is currently the number six player in the market ([0-5] %) would not increase considerably Seagate's market position and the merged entity would have a market share below 25 % on the EEA XHDD market, from which the absence of any anticompetitive effects can be presumed; (iii) there would be still enough players active on the EEA XHDD market in the near future which would compete with the merged entity; and (iv) the proposed transaction is unlikely to enable the merged entity to hinder expansion by most of its competitors as it will not have the ability nor incentive to make the expansion of non-vertically integrated players more costly. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

The Commission's investigation indicated that: (i) Seagate is only the second biggest player in the market ([10-20] %) and shares its second position with Iomega; (ii) the acquisition of Samsung HDD which is currently the number six player in the market ([0-5] %) would not increase considerably Seagate's market position and the merged entity would have a market share below 25 % on the EEA XHDD market, from which the absence of any anticompetitive effects can be presumed; (iii) there would be still enough players active on the EEA XHDD market in the near future which would compete with the merged entity; and (iv) the proposed transaction is unlikely to enable the merged entity to hinder expansion by most of its competitors as it will not have the ability nor incentive to make the expansion of non-vertically integrated players more costly.

Coordinated effects

| (41) | The Commission's market investigation did not reveal evidence of successful coordination in the relevant markets in which there are currently four HDD suppliers, such as the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs. This indicates that a reduction to four HDD manufacturers post-merger will not automatically lead to a merger-specific risk of coordination. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

The Commission's market investigation did not reveal evidence of successful coordination in the relevant markets in which there are currently four HDD suppliers, such as the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs. This indicates that a reduction to four HDD manufacturers post-merger will not automatically lead to a merger-specific risk of coordination.

| (42) | The removal of Samsung HDD does not bring a material merger-specific effect in a number of relevant markets due to Samsung HDD's lack of or small presence (5) on these markets prior to the proposed transaction. This applies notably to the markets for enterprise mission critical HDDs, for 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs, and for 3,5′′ CE HDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

The removal of Samsung HDD does not bring a material merger-specific effect in a number of relevant markets due to Samsung HDD's lack of or small presence (5) on these markets prior to the proposed transaction. This applies notably to the markets for enterprise mission critical HDDs, for 3,5′′ enterprise business critical HDDs, and for 3,5′′ CE HDDs.

| (43) | As regards the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, it can be noted that Samsung HDD is not a particularly strong innovative force or a particularly strong competitor. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

As regards the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, it can be noted that Samsung HDD is not a particularly strong innovative force or a particularly strong competitor.

| (44) | In the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, the level of post-merger asymmetry would remain high taking into account that the difference between the combined entity and HGST is more than 3,5:1, and between Western Digital and HGST of more than 3:1. In addition, the Commission's investigation showed that HGST has the incentive to expand sales and grow its [10-20] % share and it is unlikely to accept the status quo of remaining in a distant third place on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

In the market for 3,5′′ desktop HDDs, the level of post-merger asymmetry would remain high taking into account that the difference between the combined entity and HGST is more than 3,5:1, and between Western Digital and HGST of more than 3:1. In addition, the Commission's investigation showed that HGST has the incentive to expand sales and grow its [10-20] % share and it is unlikely to accept the status quo of remaining in a distant third place on the market.

| (45) | The proposed transaction does therefore not give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition stemming from coordinated effects in the relevant HDD markets. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

The proposed transaction does therefore not give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition stemming from coordinated effects in the relevant HDD markets.

Vertical relationships

| (46) | The proposed transaction gives rise to vertical relationships between the upstream markets for: (i) heads and (ii) media which are two of the components used in the manufacture of HDDs, and (iii) the downstream markets for HDDs which use those components. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

The proposed transaction gives rise to vertical relationships between the upstream markets for: (i) heads and (ii) media which are two of the components used in the manufacture of HDDs, and (iii) the downstream markets for HDDs which use those components.

| (47) | Contrary to Seagate, Samsung is not vertically-integrated upstream in the production of HDD components such as heads or media. Toshiba is also not vertically-integrated and depends on third party suppliers for its sourcing of heads and media. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

Contrary to Seagate, Samsung is not vertically-integrated upstream in the production of HDD components such as heads or media. Toshiba is also not vertically-integrated and depends on third party suppliers for its sourcing of heads and media.

| (48) | The Commission's investigation however revealed that after the transaction Seagate will not have the ability or incentive to pursue a foreclosure strategy against TDK (the only supplier of heads in the merchant market) which would risk weakening TDK and in turn endanger the competitive supply of this key component to Toshiba. In particular, pursuant to the Letter of Intent entered between Seagate and TDK on 3 August 2011, the merged entity will continue buying a sufficient volume of heads from TDK at least until 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

The Commission's investigation however revealed that after the transaction Seagate will not have the ability or incentive to pursue a foreclosure strategy against TDK (the only supplier of heads in the merchant market) which would risk weakening TDK and in turn endanger the competitive supply of this key component to Toshiba. In particular, pursuant to the Letter of Intent entered between Seagate and TDK on 3 August 2011, the merged entity will continue buying a sufficient volume of heads from TDK at least until 2014.

| (49) | The Commission's investigation also indicated that the proposed transaction is not likely to have any significant adverse effect on Samsung's current suppliers of media (Showa Denko and Fuji). |
| --- | --- |

(49)

The Commission's investigation also indicated that the proposed transaction is not likely to have any significant adverse effect on Samsung's current suppliers of media (Showa Denko and Fuji).

IV.   CONCLUSION

| (50) | For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

| (51) | Consequently, the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

Consequently, the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

(2)  The 1,8′′ drive will not be discussed as neither Seagate nor Samsung manufactures this type of HDDs.

(3)  For the purpose of the decision, there is no need to differentiate enterprise mission critical HDDs according to form factor as no competition concerns arise in this market under any alternative product market definition.

(4)  Given that the parties' combined market share is below 15 %.

(5)  Equal or less than 2 % market share.

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/13

---

Commission notice concerning the date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation of origin between the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (1) and Turkey

2012/C 154/07

For the purpose of the creation of diagonal cumulation of origin among the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey, the European Union and the countries concerned notify each other, through the European Commission, of the origin rules in force with the other countries.

Based on the notifications received from the countries concerned, the table here enclosed gives an overview of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation specifying the date from which such cumulation becomes applicable. This table replaces the previous one (OJ C 63, 2.3.2012, p. 8).

It is recalled that cumulation can only be applied if the countries of final manufacture and of final destination have concluded free trade agreements, containing identical rules of origin, with all the countries participating in the acquisition of originating status, i.e. with all the countries in which all the materials used originate. Materials originating in a country which has not concluded an agreement with the countries of final manufacture and of final destination must be treated as non-originating.

It is also recalled that the materials originating in Turkey covered by the EU/Turkey customs union can be incorporated as originating materials for the purpose of diagonal cumulation between the European Union and the countries participating in the Stabilisation and Association Process with which an origin protocol is in force.

The ISO-Alpha-2 codes for countries listed in the table are given here below:

| — | Albania | AL |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | Bosnia and Herzegovina | BA |
| — | Croatia | HR |
| — | The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia | MK (2) |
| — | Montenegro | ME |
| — | Serbia | RS |
| — | Turkey | TR |

—

Albania

AL

—

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BA

—

Croatia

HR

—

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

MK (2)

—

Montenegro

ME

—

Serbia

RS

—

Turkey

TR

Date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey

| | EU | AL | BA | HR | MK | ME | RS | TR |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| EU | | 1.1.2007 | 1.7.2008 | 1.6.2011 | 1.1.2007 | 1.1.2008 | 8.12.2009 | (3) |
| AL | 1.1.2007 | | 22.11.2007 | 22.8.2007 | 26.7.2007 | 26.7.2007 | 24.10.2007 | 1.8.2011 |
| BA | 1.7.2008 | 22.11.2007 | | 22.11.2007 | 22.11.2007 | 22.11.2007 | 22.11.2007 | 14.12.2011 |
| HR | 1.6.2011 | 22.8.2007 | 22.11.2007 | | 22.8.2007 | 22.8.2007 | 24.10.2007 | 1.5.2012 |
| MK | 1.1.2007 | 26.7.2007 | 22.11.2007 | 22.8.2007 | | 26.7.2007 | 24.10.2007 | 1.7.2009 |
| ME | 1.1.2008 | 26.7.2007 | 22.11.2007 | 22.8.2007 | 26.7.2007 | | 24.10.2007 | 1.3.2010 |
| RS | 8.12.2009 | 24.10.2007 | 22.11.2007 | 24.10.2007 | 24.10.2007 | 24.10.2007 | | 1.9.2010 |
| TR | (3) | 1.8.2011 | 14.12.2011 | 1.5.2012 | 1.7.2009 | 1.3.2010 | 1.9.2010 | |

EU

AL

BA

HR

MK

ME

RS

TR

EU

1.1.2007

1.7.2008

1.6.2011

1.1.2007

1.1.2008

8.12.2009

(3)

AL

1.1.2007

22.11.2007

22.8.2007

26.7.2007

26.7.2007

24.10.2007

1.8.2011

BA

1.7.2008

22.11.2007

22.11.2007

22.11.2007

22.11.2007

22.11.2007

14.12.2011

HR

1.6.2011

22.8.2007

22.11.2007

22.8.2007

22.8.2007

24.10.2007

1.5.2012

MK

1.1.2007

26.7.2007

22.11.2007

22.8.2007

26.7.2007

24.10.2007

1.7.2009

ME

1.1.2008

26.7.2007

22.11.2007

22.8.2007

26.7.2007

24.10.2007

1.3.2010

RS

8.12.2009

24.10.2007

22.11.2007

24.10.2007

24.10.2007

24.10.2007

1.9.2010

TR

(3)

1.8.2011

14.12.2011

1.5.2012

1.7.2009

1.3.2010

1.9.2010

---

(1)  Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia are the countries participating in the Stabilisation and Association Process.

(2)  ISO code 3166. Provisional code which does not prejudge in any way the definitive nomenclature for this country, which will be agreed following the conclusion of negotiations currently taking place under the auspices of the United Nations.

(3)  For goods covered by the EU-Turkey customs union, the date of application is 27 July 2006.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/15

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 154/08

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 23.4.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 23.4.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | The Netherlands |
| Stock or group of stocks | HKE/571214 |
| Species | Hake (Merluccius merluccius) |
| Zone | VI and VII; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | — |

Date and time of closure

23.4.2012

Duration

23.4.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

The Netherlands

Stock or group of stocks

HKE/571214

Species

Hake (Merluccius merluccius)

Zone

VI and VII; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

—

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/16

---

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))

2012/C 154/09

PART I

| Aid No | GBER 6/12/EMP |
| --- | --- |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Granting authority | Name | The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration |
| Address | Postboks 5 St. Olavs plass |
| 0130 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Aid No

GBER 6/12/EMP

EFTA State

Norway

Granting authority

Name

The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration

Address

Postboks 5 St. Olavs plass

0130 Oslo

NORWAY

Webpage

http://www.nav.no

Title of the aid measure

(Forskrift om forsøk med funksjonsassistanse i arbeidslivet)

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Regulation (EU) No 1363/2011

Web link to the full text of the aid measure

http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/ad/xd-20111212-1363.html

Type of measure

Scheme

X

Duration

Scheme

From 1.1.2012 until 31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

X

Type of beneficiary

SME

X

Large enterprises

X

Budget

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

Approximately NOK 30 million

For guarantees

NOK ... million

Aid instrument (Article 5)

Grant

X

PART II

| General objectives (list) | Objectives (list) | Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK | SME — bonuses in % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Aid for disadvantaged and disabled workers (Articles 40-42) | Aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged workers in the form of wage subsidies (Article 40) | ... % | |
| Aid for the employment of disabled workers in the form of wage subsidies (Article 41) | ... % | |
| Aid for compensating the additional costs of employing disabled workers (Article 42) | Documented additional costs for the assistant, for one year at the time | |

General objectives (list)

Objectives (list)

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK

SME — bonuses in %

Aid for disadvantaged and disabled workers (Articles 40-42)

Aid for the recruitment of disadvantaged workers in the form of wage subsidies (Article 40)

... %

Aid for the employment of disabled workers in the form of wage subsidies (Article 41)

... %

Aid for compensating the additional costs of employing disabled workers (Article 42)

Documented additional costs for the assistant, for one year at the time

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/18

---

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))

2012/C 154/10

PART I

| Aid No | GBER 7/12/ENV |
| --- | --- |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Region | Name of the region (NUTS)
  Level 3: County Hordaland | Regional aid status: mixed areas |
| Granting authority | Name | Osterfjord Næringssamarbeid, ved Industrikonsulenten på Osterøy |
| Address | 5282 Lonevåg |
| NORWAY |

Aid No

GBER 7/12/ENV

EFTA State

Norway

Region

Name of the region (NUTS)

Level 3: County Hordaland

Regional aid status: mixed areas

Granting authority

Name

Osterfjord Næringssamarbeid, ved Industrikonsulenten på Osterøy

Address

5282 Lonevåg

NORWAY

Webpage

http://www.rup.no search for ‘Osterfjord’

Title of the aid measure

Pilotprosjekt for å utløyse ei bioenerginæring i Hordaland (Pilot project to stimulate establishing of a bioenergy sector in the Hordaland region)

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Funding from Hordaland County Council, letter of 20 December 2006, FK06-06. Reference number: 200504724-16/3/AARN

Web link to the full text of the aid measure

http://www.rup.no/vision/vision1.aspx?hierarchyid=753&type=5

Type of measure

Scheme

Yes

Amendment of an existing aid measure

No

Prolongation

From 31.12.2011 to 31.12.2012

Duration

Scheme

19.12.2008 to 31.12.2012

Economic sectors concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Limited to specific sectors — please specify in accordance with NACE Rev. 2

Article 23:

Production of energy from renewable biological energy sources within following sectors:

| | 35.113 Production of electricity through biofuel, burning of waste and landfill gas (35.113 Produksjon av elektrisitet fra biobrensel, avfallsforbrenning og deponigass) |
| --- | --- |

35.113 Production of electricity through biofuel, burning of waste and landfill gas (35.113 Produksjon av elektrisitet fra biobrensel, avfallsforbrenning og deponigass)

| | 35.3 Steam and air conditioning supply (35.3 Damp- og varmtvannsforsyning) |
| --- | --- |

35.3 Steam and air conditioning supply (35.3 Damp- og varmtvannsforsyning)

Article 15: no prolongation

Type of beneficiary

SME

Yes

Large enterprises

No

Budget

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

For the whole period of 4 years:

NOK 2 million

Aid instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Yes

PART II

| General objectives (list) | Objectives (list) | Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK | SME — bonuses in % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Aid for Environmental protection
  (Articles 17–25) | Environmental investment aid for the promotion of energy from renewable energy sources
  (Article 23) | 45 % | 20 % small enterprises,
  10 % medium-sized enterprises |
| Aid for environmental studies
  (Article 24) | ... % | |
| Aid in the form of reductions in environmental taxes
  (Article 25) | NOK ... | |

General objectives (list)

Objectives (list)

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK

SME — bonuses in %

Aid for Environmental protection

(Articles 17–25)

Environmental investment aid for the promotion of energy from renewable energy sources

(Article 23)

45 %

20 % small enterprises,

10 % medium-sized enterprises

Aid for environmental studies

(Article 24)

... %

Aid in the form of reductions in environmental taxes

(Article 25)

NOK ...

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/20

---

View of the representatives of the EFTA States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority presented at the meeting of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6214 — Seagate Technology/The HDD Business of Samsung

Rapporteur: Italy

2012/C 154/11

Concentration

| 1. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

| 2. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction has an EU dimension pursuant to Article 1(3) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction has an EU dimension pursuant to Article 1(3) of the Merger Regulation.

Market definition

| 3. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets in the draft Decision.
  In particular, concerning the product market definition, the EFTA States and ESA agrees that the impact of the proposed transaction must be assessed on the following markets:






  (a) | The market for 3,5′′ Mission Critical Enterprise HDDs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets in the draft Decision.

In particular, concerning the product market definition, the EFTA States and ESA agrees that the impact of the proposed transaction must be assessed on the following markets:

(a)

The market for 3,5′′ Mission Critical Enterprise HDDs;

| (b) | The market for 3,5′′ Business Critical Enterprise HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The market for 3,5′′ Business Critical Enterprise HDDs;

| (c) | The market for 3,5′′ Desktop HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The market for 3,5′′ Desktop HDDs;

| (d) | The market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

The market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs;

| (e) | The market for 2,5′′ Mobile HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

The market for 2,5′′ Mobile HDDs;

| (f) | The market for 2,5′′ CE HDDs; and |
| --- | --- |

(f)

The market for 2,5′′ CE HDDs; and

| (g) | The XHDD market. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

The XHDD market.

| 4. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the geographic market definition for:






  (a) | HDDs; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the geographic market definition for:

(a)

HDDs; and

| (b) | XHDDs. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

XHDDs.

Counterfactual

| 5. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of the competitive assessment of the proposed transaction, the most appropriate approach is to adopt the priority rule (‘first come, first served’) based on the date of notification. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of the competitive assessment of the proposed transaction, the most appropriate approach is to adopt the priority rule (‘first come, first served’) based on the date of notification.

| 6. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that the proposed transaction must be assessed in the light of the competitive situation that prevailed at the time of its notification, i.e. without taking into consideration the transaction in Case COMP/M.6203 Western Digital/Viviti Technologies (Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, recently renamed Viviti Technologies). |
| --- | --- |

6.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission that the proposed transaction must be assessed in the light of the competitive situation that prevailed at the time of its notification, i.e. without taking into consideration the transaction in Case COMP/M.6203 Western Digital/Viviti Technologies (Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, recently renamed Viviti Technologies).

Competitive assessment

Non-coordinated effects

| 7. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's view that non-coordinated effects must be assessed on the following markets:






  (a) | The worldwide market for 3,5′′ Desktop HDDs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's view that non-coordinated effects must be assessed on the following markets:

(a)

The worldwide market for 3,5′′ Desktop HDDs;

| (b) | The worldwide market for 2,5′′ Mobile HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The worldwide market for 2,5′′ Mobile HDDs;

| (c) | The worldwide market for 3,5′′ Business Critical Enterprise HDDs; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The worldwide market for 3,5′′ Business Critical Enterprise HDDs;

| (d) | The worldwide market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs; and |
| --- | --- |

(d)

The worldwide market for 3,5′′ CE HDDs; and

| (e) | The EEA-wide XHDD market. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

The EEA-wide XHDD market.

| 8. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's assessment that post transaction customers will have the possibility to source from at least three strong HDD suppliers and that the proposed transaction will not impact the ability of customers to multi-source and switch suppliers in all of the relevant HDD markets. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's assessment that post transaction customers will have the possibility to source from at least three strong HDD suppliers and that the proposed transaction will not impact the ability of customers to multi-source and switch suppliers in all of the relevant HDD markets.

| 9. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's assessment that Seagate and Samsung HDD are not particularly close competitors in any of the relevant HDD markets. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's assessment that Seagate and Samsung HDD are not particularly close competitors in any of the relevant HDD markets.

| 10. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the proposed transaction will not eliminate an important competitive force due to Samsung’s less competitive and innovative abilities. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the proposed transaction will not eliminate an important competitive force due to Samsung’s less competitive and innovative abilities.

| 11. | As regards the EEA-wide XHDD market, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's assessment that:






  (a) | The acquisition of Samsung would not considerably increase Seagate's market position; |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

As regards the EEA-wide XHDD market, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's assessment that:

(a)

The acquisition of Samsung would not considerably increase Seagate's market position;

| (b) | Even considering the current market trend of HDD manufacturers gaining rapidly market shares to the detriment of the non-integrated XHDD suppliers, three credible alternative suppliers would remain present in the EEA-wide XHDD market after the transaction; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Even considering the current market trend of HDD manufacturers gaining rapidly market shares to the detriment of the non-integrated XHDD suppliers, three credible alternative suppliers would remain present in the EEA-wide XHDD market after the transaction; and

| (c) | The merged entity will have neither the ability nor the incentive to foreclose a significant part of the market. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The merged entity will have neither the ability nor the incentive to foreclose a significant part of the market.

| 12. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to non-coordinated effects that would significantly impede effective competition on the worldwide HDD markets for 3,5′′ Desktop HDDs, 2,5′′ Mobile HDDs, 3,5′′ Business Critical HDDs, and 3,5′′ CE HDDs nor on the EEA-wide XHDD market. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to non-coordinated effects that would significantly impede effective competition on the worldwide HDD markets for 3,5′′ Desktop HDDs, 2,5′′ Mobile HDDs, 3,5′′ Business Critical HDDs, and 3,5′′ CE HDDs nor on the EEA-wide XHDD market.

Coordinated effects

| 13. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s assessment that it is likely that the proposed transaction will not increase the ability of the remaining HDD suppliers to reach terms of coordination. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s assessment that it is likely that the proposed transaction will not increase the ability of the remaining HDD suppliers to reach terms of coordination.

| 14. | In particular, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s view that:






  (a) | The removal of Samsung HDD does not cause a material merger-specific effect in a number of relevant markets due to Samsung’s lack of or insignificant presence on the markets for 3,5′′ Business Critical Enterprise HDDs and 3,5′′ CE HDDs; |
| --- | --- | --- |

14.

In particular, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s view that:

(a)

The removal of Samsung HDD does not cause a material merger-specific effect in a number of relevant markets due to Samsung’s lack of or insignificant presence on the markets for 3,5′′ Business Critical Enterprise HDDs and 3,5′′ CE HDDs;

| (b) | On the 3,5′′ Desktop HDD market, Samsung is not a particularly strong innovative force or a particularly strong competitor and therefore the effect of Samsung's removal is likely to be limited with regard to coordinated effects; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

On the 3,5′′ Desktop HDD market, Samsung is not a particularly strong innovative force or a particularly strong competitor and therefore the effect of Samsung's removal is likely to be limited with regard to coordinated effects;

| (c) | On the 3,5′′ Desktop HDD market the level of post-merger asymmetry would remain high; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

On the 3,5′′ Desktop HDD market the level of post-merger asymmetry would remain high;

| (d) | It appears likely that HGST would have strong incentives not to participate in any coordination in the 3,5′′ Desktop HDD market. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

It appears likely that HGST would have strong incentives not to participate in any coordination in the 3,5′′ Desktop HDD market.

| 15. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition stemming from coordinated effects. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition stemming from coordinated effects.

Vertical effects

| 16. | Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for head components, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for head components, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition.

| 17. | Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for media components, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Concerning vertical relationships between the downstream HDD markets and the upstream markets for media components, The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to impede effective competition.

Conclusion

| 18. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

| 19. | The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the notified concentration must be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

19.

The EFTA States and ESA agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the notified concentration must be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Christian LUND

Tone H. AARTHUN

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/23

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6614 — Samsung Electronics/Samsung Mobile Display)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 154/12

| 1. | On 21 May 2012, 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 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (‘SEC’, South Korea) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Samsung Mobile Display (‘SMD’, South Korea) by way of purchase of assets. SEC currently exercises joint control over SMD. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 May 2012, 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 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (‘SEC’, South Korea) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Samsung Mobile Display (‘SMD’, South Korea) by way of purchase of assets. SEC currently exercises joint control over SMD.

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






  — | for SEC: design, development, manufacture and sale of a wide range of products in the area of electronics and information technology. In particular, SEC produces mid-to-large thin film transistor liquid crystal displays (‘TFT-LCD’) for TVs and monitors, digital information applications and notebook PCs, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for SEC: design, development, manufacture and sale of a wide range of products in the area of electronics and information technology. In particular, SEC produces mid-to-large thin film transistor liquid crystal displays (‘TFT-LCD’) for TVs and monitors, digital information applications and notebook PCs,

| — | for SMD: development, manufacture and sale of TFT-LCD and organic light emitting diodes (‘OLED’) panel displays that are used as information transmitting display systems for mobile equipment such as cellular phones, digital cameras and portable media players. |
| --- | --- |

—

for SMD: development, manufacture and sale of TFT-LCD and organic light emitting diodes (‘OLED’) panel displays that are used as information transmitting display systems for mobile equipment such as cellular phones, digital cameras and portable media players.

| 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.6614 — Samsung Electronics/Samsung Mobile Display, 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.6614 — Samsung Electronics/Samsung Mobile Display, 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’).

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/25

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6469 — Tognum/TMH/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 154/13

| 1. | On 21 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which JSC Transmashholding (‘TMH’, Russian Federation), ultimately controlled by Alstom Holdings (‘Alstom’, France) and Russian Railways (‘RZD’, Russia), and Tognum AG (‘Tognum’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly created full-function joint venture (the ‘JV’, Russian Federation) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 May 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which JSC Transmashholding (‘TMH’, Russian Federation), ultimately controlled by Alstom Holdings (‘Alstom’, France) and Russian Railways (‘RZD’, Russia), and Tognum AG (‘Tognum’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over a newly created full-function joint venture (the ‘JV’, Russian Federation) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for TMH: diesel engine manufacturing in Russia and designated export markets, inter alia, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for TMH: diesel engine manufacturing in Russia and designated export markets, inter alia,

| — | for Tognum: development, design, manufacture, supply and service of diesel engines and complete propulsion systems for various applications, among others, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Tognum: development, design, manufacture, supply and service of diesel engines and complete propulsion systems for various applications, among others,

| — | for the JV: will develop, manufacture and sell diesel engines in the Russian markets and the designated export markets. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the JV: will develop, manufacture and sell diesel engines in the Russian markets and the designated export markets.

| 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.6469 — Tognum/TMH/JV, 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.6469 — Tognum/TMH/JV, 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’).

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/26

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 154/14

| 1. | On 21 May 2012, 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 Arrow Electronics Inc (‘Arrow’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Altimate Group SA (‘Altimate’, France) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 May 2012, 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 Arrow Electronics Inc (‘Arrow’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Altimate Group SA (‘Altimate’, France) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Arrow: global wholesale distribution of electronic components (including semiconductors and passive, electromechanical and interconnect products) and enterprise computing solutions (software and hardware, including servers and data storage products) and ancillary support services to industrial and commercial users, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Arrow: global wholesale distribution of electronic components (including semiconductors and passive, electromechanical and interconnect products) and enterprise computing solutions (software and hardware, including servers and data storage products) and ancillary support services to industrial and commercial users,

| — | for Altimate: wholesale distribution of software (in particular data management, IT management, security and virtualization software) and hardware products (in particular servers and data storage products) and related services mainly in the EEA (in particular in France, Portugal, Spain, the Benelux region, and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Altimate: wholesale distribution of software (in particular data management, IT management, security and virtualization software) and hardware products (in particular servers and data storage products) and related services mainly in the EEA (in particular in France, Portugal, Spain, the Benelux region, and the United Kingdom.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group, 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 e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group, 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’).

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/27

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6610 — CVC/AlixPartners)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 154/15

| 1. | On 24 May 2012, 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 CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’), Luxembourg, member of the CVC group, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of AlixPartners LLP (‘Alix’), USA, by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 24 May 2012, 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 CVC Capital Partners SICAV-FIS SA (‘CVC’), Luxembourg, member of the CVC group, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of AlixPartners LLP (‘Alix’), USA, by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | The CVC group consists of privately owned advisory entities whose activity is providing investment advice to and/or managing investments on behalf of CVC Funds. CVC Funds hold controlling interests in a number of companies in various industries including chemicals, utilities, manufacturing, retailing and distribution, primarily in Europe, the US and the Asia-Pacific region, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

The CVC group consists of privately owned advisory entities whose activity is providing investment advice to and/or managing investments on behalf of CVC Funds. CVC Funds hold controlling interests in a number of companies in various industries including chemicals, utilities, manufacturing, retailing and distribution, primarily in Europe, the US and the Asia-Pacific region,

| — | Alix is a global firm providing corporate consulting services to businesses. |
| --- | --- |

—

Alix is a global firm providing corporate consulting services to businesses.

| 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.6610 — CVC/AlixPartners, 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.6610 — CVC/AlixPartners, 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’).

---

Corrigenda

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/28

---

Corrigendum to the list of appointments made by the Council — January, February, March and April 2012 (social field)

(This text annuls and replaces that published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 135 of 9 May 2012, p. 6
  )

2012/C 154/16

List of appointments made by the Council

January, February, March and April 2012 (social field)

| Committee | End of term of office | Publication in OJ | Person replaced | Resignation/appointment | Member/alternate | Category | Country | Person appointed | Affiliation | Date of Council Decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Carita RAMMUS | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Estonia | Ms Kristi SUUR | Permanent Representation of Estonia to EU | 10.2.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Mr Gisbert BRINKMANN | Resignation | Member | Government | Germany | Ms Vera BADE | Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales | 14.2.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Liisa FOLKERSMA | Resignation | Alternate | Trade Union | Finland | Ms Jenni KARJALAINEN | AKAVA — Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff | 17.2.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Anna SANTESSON | Resignation | Member | Government | Sweden | Ms Jenny LINDBLAD | Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet | 9.3.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Tiina OINONEN | Resignation | Member | Government | Finland | Mr Olli SORAINEN | Ministry of Employment and the Economy | 19.3.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Elina IMMONEN | Resignation | Member | Government | Finland | Ms Katri AALTONEN | Ministry of the Interior | 19.3.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Eleni KALAVA | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Cyprus | Ms Elena SIVITANIDOU | Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance | 19.3.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Ingrid NOWOTNY | Resignation | Member | Government | Austria | Mr Heinz KUTROWATZ | Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz | 26.3.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Martha ROJAS-PINEDA | Resignation | Member | Government | Austria | Mr Helmut GERL | Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich | 26.3.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Mr Heinz KUTROWATZ | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Austria | Ms Barbara BOHACZEK | Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz | 26.3.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Ms Georgia HEINE | Resignation | Alternate | Employers | Germany | Ms Anna ROBRA | BDA (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitsgeberverbände) | 24.4.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers | 24.9.2012 | C 294, 29.10.2010 | Mr Stefan STRÄSSER | Resignation | Member | Employers | Germany | Ms Carmen Eugenia BÂRSAN | BDA (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitsgeberverbände) | 24.4.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work | 28.2.2013 | L 45, 20.2.2010 | Mr Willy IMBRECHTS | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Belgium | Mr Jan BATEN | SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale | 17.2.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work | 28.2.2013 | L 45, 20.2.2010 | Ms Elissavet GALANOPOULOU | Resignation | Member | Government | Greece | Mr Antonios CHRISTODOULOU | Ministry of Labour and Social Security | 26.4.2012 |
| Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work | 28.2.2013 | L 45, 20.2.2010 | Mr Antonios CHRISTODOULOU | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Greece | Ms Stamatina PISSIMISSI | Ministry of Labour and Social Security | 26.4.2012 |
| Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems | 19.10.2015 | C 290, 27.10.2010 | Ms Estelle CEULEMANS | Resignation | Alternate | Trade Union | Belgium | Ms Anne PANNEELS | FGTB | 24.4.2012 |
| Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems | 19.10.2015 | C 290, 27.10.2010 | Mr Andreas KYRIAKIDES | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Cyprus | Mr Sotiris STRATIS | Ministry of Health | 24.4.2012 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2013 | C 137, 27.5.2010 | Ms Martina JANÍKOVÁ | Resignation | Member | Government | Slovakia | Ms Olga PIETRUCHOVÁ | Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of SR | 14.2.2012 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2013 | C 137, 27.5.2010 | Ms Andrea BARŠOVÁ | Resignation | Member | Government | Czech Republic | Mr Miroslav FUCHS | Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs | 9.3.2012 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2013 | C 137, 27.5.2010 | Mr Czeslaw WALEK | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Czech Republic | Ms Lucia ZACHARIÁŠOVÁ | Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs | 9.3.2012 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2013 | C 137, 27.5.2010 | Ms Teresa Margarida DO CARMO FRAGOSO | Resignation | Member | Government | Portugal | Ms Maria de Fátima ABRANTES DUARTE | Comissão para a Cidadania e a Igualdade de Género | 9.3.2012 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2013 | C 137, 27.5.2010 | Mr Pedro DELGADO ALVES | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Portugal | Mr Manuel Maria FEIO BARROSO | Comissão para a Cidadania e a Igualdade de Género | 9.3.2012 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2013 | C 137, 27.5.2010 | Ms Judit GAZSI | Resignation | Member | Government | Hungary | Ms Zsuzsanna DEBRECENI Dr. KORMOSNÉ | Ministry of State for Social, Family and Youth Affaires | 26.4.2012 |
| Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 31.5.2013 | C 137, 27.5.2010 | Ms Anna OROSZ | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Hungary | Ms Judit HALASZ | Ministry of State for Social, Family and Youth Affaires | 26.4.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Ms Viviane GOERGEN | Resignation | Member | Trade Union | Luxembourg | Mr Vincent JACQUET | LCGB | 10.2.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Mr Tarmo KRIIS | Resignation | Alternate | Employers | Estonia | Ms Marika MERILAI | Estonian Traders Association | 10.2.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Mr Jan BATEN | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Belgium | Mr Alain PIETTE | SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale | 17.2.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Ms Keti KOYNAKOVA | Resignation | Member | Trade Union | Bulgaria | Mr Ivan KOKALOV | CITUB | 8.3.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Mr Ivan KOKALOV | Resignation | Alternate | Trade Union | Bulgaria | Mr Oleg CHULEV | ISETUR- RODKREPA | 8.3.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions | 30.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Mr Ole PRASZ | Resignation | Member | Trade Union | Denmark | Mr Jan KAHR FREDERIKSEN | FTF | 9.3.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work | 7.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Mr Willy IMBRECHTS | Resignation | Member | Government | Belgium | Mr Jan BATEN | SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale | 17.2.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work | 7.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Mr Christian DENEVE | Resignation | Alternate | Government | Belgium | Ms Véronique CRUTZEN | SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale | 17.2.2012 |
| Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work | 7.11.2013 | C 322, 27.11.2010 | Ms Elissavet GALANOPOULOU | Resignation | Member | Government | Greece | Mr Antonios CHRISTODOULOU | Ministry of Labour and Social Security | 26.4.2012 |

Committee

End of term of office

Publication in OJ

Person replaced

Resignation/appointment

Member/alternate

Category

Country

Person appointed

Affiliation

Date of Council Decision

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Carita RAMMUS

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Estonia

Ms Kristi SUUR

Permanent Representation of Estonia to EU

10.2.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Mr Gisbert BRINKMANN

Resignation

Member

Government

Germany

Ms Vera BADE

Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales

14.2.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Liisa FOLKERSMA

Resignation

Alternate

Trade Union

Finland

Ms Jenni KARJALAINEN

AKAVA — Confederation of Unions for Professional and Managerial Staff

17.2.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Anna SANTESSON

Resignation

Member

Government

Sweden

Ms Jenny LINDBLAD

Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet

9.3.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Tiina OINONEN

Resignation

Member

Government

Finland

Mr Olli SORAINEN

Ministry of Employment and the Economy

19.3.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Elina IMMONEN

Resignation

Member

Government

Finland

Ms Katri AALTONEN

Ministry of the Interior

19.3.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Eleni KALAVA

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Cyprus

Ms Elena SIVITANIDOU

Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance

19.3.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Ingrid NOWOTNY

Resignation

Member

Government

Austria

Mr Heinz KUTROWATZ

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz

26.3.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Martha ROJAS-PINEDA

Resignation

Member

Government

Austria

Mr Helmut GERL

Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich

26.3.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Mr Heinz KUTROWATZ

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Austria

Ms Barbara BOHACZEK

Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz

26.3.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Ms Georgia HEINE

Resignation

Alternate

Employers

Germany

Ms Anna ROBRA

BDA (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitsgeberverbände)

24.4.2012

Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers

24.9.2012

C 294, 29.10.2010

Mr Stefan STRÄSSER

Resignation

Member

Employers

Germany

Ms Carmen Eugenia BÂRSAN

BDA (Bundesvereinigung der Deutschen Arbeitsgeberverbände)

24.4.2012

Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

28.2.2013

L 45, 20.2.2010

Mr Willy IMBRECHTS

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Belgium

Mr Jan BATEN

SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale

17.2.2012

Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

28.2.2013

L 45, 20.2.2010

Ms Elissavet GALANOPOULOU

Resignation

Member

Government

Greece

Mr Antonios CHRISTODOULOU

Ministry of Labour and Social Security

26.4.2012

Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work

28.2.2013

L 45, 20.2.2010

Mr Antonios CHRISTODOULOU

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Greece

Ms Stamatina PISSIMISSI

Ministry of Labour and Social Security

26.4.2012

Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems

19.10.2015

C 290, 27.10.2010

Ms Estelle CEULEMANS

Resignation

Alternate

Trade Union

Belgium

Ms Anne PANNEELS

FGTB

24.4.2012

Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems

19.10.2015

C 290, 27.10.2010

Mr Andreas KYRIAKIDES

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Cyprus

Mr Sotiris STRATIS

Ministry of Health

24.4.2012

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2013

C 137, 27.5.2010

Ms Martina JANÍKOVÁ

Resignation

Member

Government

Slovakia

Ms Olga PIETRUCHOVÁ

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of SR

14.2.2012

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2013

C 137, 27.5.2010

Ms Andrea BARŠOVÁ

Resignation

Member

Government

Czech Republic

Mr Miroslav FUCHS

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

9.3.2012

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2013

C 137, 27.5.2010

Mr Czeslaw WALEK

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Czech Republic

Ms Lucia ZACHARIÁŠOVÁ

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

9.3.2012

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2013

C 137, 27.5.2010

Ms Teresa Margarida DO CARMO FRAGOSO

Resignation

Member

Government

Portugal

Ms Maria de Fátima ABRANTES DUARTE

Comissão para a Cidadania e a Igualdade de Género

9.3.2012

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2013

C 137, 27.5.2010

Mr Pedro DELGADO ALVES

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Portugal

Mr Manuel Maria FEIO BARROSO

Comissão para a Cidadania e a Igualdade de Género

9.3.2012

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2013

C 137, 27.5.2010

Ms Judit GAZSI

Resignation

Member

Government

Hungary

Ms Zsuzsanna DEBRECENI Dr. KORMOSNÉ

Ministry of State for Social, Family and Youth Affaires

26.4.2012

Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

31.5.2013

C 137, 27.5.2010

Ms Anna OROSZ

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Hungary

Ms Judit HALASZ

Ministry of State for Social, Family and Youth Affaires

26.4.2012

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

30.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Ms Viviane GOERGEN

Resignation

Member

Trade Union

Luxembourg

Mr Vincent JACQUET

LCGB

10.2.2012

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

30.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Mr Tarmo KRIIS

Resignation

Alternate

Employers

Estonia

Ms Marika MERILAI

Estonian Traders Association

10.2.2012

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

30.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Mr Jan BATEN

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Belgium

Mr Alain PIETTE

SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale

17.2.2012

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

30.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Ms Keti KOYNAKOVA

Resignation

Member

Trade Union

Bulgaria

Mr Ivan KOKALOV

CITUB

8.3.2012

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

30.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Mr Ivan KOKALOV

Resignation

Alternate

Trade Union

Bulgaria

Mr Oleg CHULEV

ISETUR- RODKREPA

8.3.2012

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

30.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Mr Ole PRASZ

Resignation

Member

Trade Union

Denmark

Mr Jan KAHR FREDERIKSEN

FTF

9.3.2012

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

7.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Mr Willy IMBRECHTS

Resignation

Member

Government

Belgium

Mr Jan BATEN

SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale

17.2.2012

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

7.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Mr Christian DENEVE

Resignation

Alternate

Government

Belgium

Ms Véronique CRUTZEN

SPF Emploi, travail et concertation sociale

17.2.2012

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

7.11.2013

C 322, 27.11.2010

Ms Elissavet GALANOPOULOU

Resignation

Member

Government

Greece

Mr Antonios CHRISTODOULOU

Ministry of Labour and Social Security

26.4.2012

---

| 31.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/32

---

Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 147 of 25 May 2012
  )

2012/C 154/17

On page 15, State aid N 598/09:

for:

| ‘Date of adoption of the decision | 27.1.2012’, |
| --- | --- |

‘Date of adoption of the decision

27.1.2012’,

read:

| ‘Date of adoption of the decision | 27.1.2010’. |
| --- | --- |

‘Date of adoption of the decision

27.1.2010’.

---