# Official Journal C 280/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.280.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 280 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5515 September 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.280.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 280

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5515 September 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 280/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 280/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 280/02 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |
| 2012/C 280/03 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 6 June 2012 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva — Rapporteur: Belgium | 6 |
| 2012/C 280/04 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva | 7 |
| 2012/C 280/05 | Summary of Commission Decision of 18 June 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva) (notified under document C(2012) 4028)
   (
  2
  ) | 8 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 280/06 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 11 |
| 2012/C 280/07 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 11 |
| 2012/C 280/08 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 12 |
| 2012/C 280/09 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 12 |
| 2012/C 280/10 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 13 |
| 2012/C 280/11 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 13 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 280/02

Euro exchange rates

5

2012/C 280/03

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 6 June 2012 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva — Rapporteur: Belgium

6

2012/C 280/04

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva

7

2012/C 280/05

Summary of Commission Decision of 18 June 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva) (notified under document C(2012) 4028)
   (
  2
  )

(notified under document C(2012) 4028)

2

8

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 280/06

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

11

2012/C 280/07

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

11

2012/C 280/08

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

12

2012/C 280/09

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

12

2012/C 280/10

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

13

2012/C 280/11

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

13

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 280/12 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6680 — CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill/CVCIGP II Client Rosehill/CNK/Holidaybreak) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  2
  ) | 14 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 280/12

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6680 — CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill/CVCIGP II Client Rosehill/CNK/Holidaybreak) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  2
  )

2

14

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance

2

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2012/C 280/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 13.7.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.34005 (12/N) |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | — | Non-assisted areas |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Investeringen op het terrein van energiebesparing voor de glastuinbouw |
| Legal basis | Kaderwet LNV-subsidies
  Regeling LNV-subsidies: Hoofdstuk 1; artikel 2:1a; artikel 2.2; artikel 2:37; bijlage 2, hoofdstuk 1 |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Energy saving, Environmental protection, Investments in agricultural holdings |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | | Overall budget: EUR 90 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

13.7.2012

Reference number of State Aid

SA.34005 (12/N)

Member State

Netherlands

Region

—

Non-assisted areas

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Investeringen op het terrein van energiebesparing voor de glastuinbouw

Legal basis

Kaderwet LNV-subsidies

Regeling LNV-subsidies: Hoofdstuk 1; artikel 2:1a; artikel 2.2; artikel 2:37; bijlage 2, hoofdstuk 1

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Energy saving, Environmental protection, Investments in agricultural holdings

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 90 million

| | Annual budget: EUR 15 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: EUR 15 million

Intensity

40 %

Duration (period)

1.7.2012-31.12.2017

Economic sectors

Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

Name and address of the granting authority

| Minister van EL&I |
| --- |
| Postbus 20401 |
| 2500 EK Den Haag |
| NEDERLAND |

Minister van EL&I

Postbus 20401

2500 EK Den Haag

NEDERLAND

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Date of adoption of the decision | 14.6.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.34340 (12/N) |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Richtlinie zur Förderung von Maßnahmen zur Information von Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern über eine auf Nachhaltigkeit ausgerichtete Landwirtschaft und ihre Erzeugnisse sowie zur Förderung damit verbundener Absatzförderungsmaßnahmen. |
| Legal basis | Richtlinie zur Förderung von Maßnahmen zur Information von Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern über eine auf Nachhaltigkeit ausgerichtete Landwirtschaft und ihre Erzeugnisse sowie zur Förderung damit verbundener Absatzförderungsmaßnahmen. |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Advertising (AGRI) |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 9 million |
| Intensity | 50 % |
| Duration (period) | Until 31.12.2016 |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture, forestry and fishing |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung |
| Deichmanns Aue 29 |
| 53179 Bonn |
| DEUTSCHLAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

14.6.2012

Reference number of State Aid

SA.34340 (12/N)

Member State

Germany

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Richtlinie zur Förderung von Maßnahmen zur Information von Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern über eine auf Nachhaltigkeit ausgerichtete Landwirtschaft und ihre Erzeugnisse sowie zur Förderung damit verbundener Absatzförderungsmaßnahmen.

Legal basis

Richtlinie zur Förderung von Maßnahmen zur Information von Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern über eine auf Nachhaltigkeit ausgerichtete Landwirtschaft und ihre Erzeugnisse sowie zur Förderung damit verbundener Absatzförderungsmaßnahmen.

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Advertising (AGRI)

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 9 million

Intensity

50 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2016

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

Deichmanns Aue 29

53179 Bonn

DEUTSCHLAND

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Date of adoption of the decision | 27.6.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.34625 (12/N) |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Misura 111 dei Programmi di sviluppo regionali — Azioni nel campo della formazione professionale e dell'informazione rivolte agli addetti del settore forestale |
| Legal basis | Decreto legislativo n. 227/2001 e successive modifiche;
  Decreto ministeriale 16 giugno 2005«Linee guida di programmazione forestale»;
  Programma quadro nazionale per il settore forestale (PQSF) approvato in CSR il 18 dicembre 2008;
  leggi e regolamenti regionali e, in assenza, prescrizioni di massima e di Polizia forestale, previste dal R.D.L. 30 dicembre 1923, n. 3267;
  norme d'uso di gestione e salvaguardia dei boschi, di competenza regionale, formulate sulla base dei principi internazionali di gestione forestale sostenibile di competenza della Regioni, formulate, sulla base delle caratteristiche territoriali, sui principi internazionali di Gestione forestale sostenibile [Conferenze ministeriali per la protezione delle foreste in Europa (MCPFE), adottati dal Governo Italiano e dalle Amministrazioni regionali.] |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Technical support (AGRI), Forestry, Sectoral development |
| Form of aid | Other — Servizi agevolati |
| Budget | | Overall budget: EUR 100 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

27.6.2012

Reference number of State Aid

SA.34625 (12/N)

Member State

Italy

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Misura 111 dei Programmi di sviluppo regionali — Azioni nel campo della formazione professionale e dell'informazione rivolte agli addetti del settore forestale

Legal basis

Decreto legislativo n. 227/2001 e successive modifiche;

Decreto ministeriale 16 giugno 2005«Linee guida di programmazione forestale»;

Programma quadro nazionale per il settore forestale (PQSF) approvato in CSR il 18 dicembre 2008;

leggi e regolamenti regionali e, in assenza, prescrizioni di massima e di Polizia forestale, previste dal R.D.L. 30 dicembre 1923, n. 3267;

norme d'uso di gestione e salvaguardia dei boschi, di competenza regionale, formulate sulla base dei principi internazionali di gestione forestale sostenibile di competenza della Regioni, formulate, sulla base delle caratteristiche territoriali, sui principi internazionali di Gestione forestale sostenibile [Conferenze ministeriali per la protezione delle foreste in Europa (MCPFE), adottati dal Governo Italiano e dalle Amministrazioni regionali.]

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Technical support (AGRI), Forestry, Sectoral development

Form of aid

Other — Servizi agevolati

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 100 million

| | Annual budget: EUR 100 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: EUR 100 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali |
| --- |
| Via XX Settembre 20 |
| 00187 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |

Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali

Via XX Settembre 20

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Date of adoption of the decision | 27.6.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.34629 (12/N) |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Misura 114 dei Programmi di Sviluppo Rurale regionali 2007-2013.
  Utilizzo dei servizi di consulenza nell'ambito — Settore forestale |
| Legal basis | Decreto legislativo n. 227/2001 e successive modifiche;
  Decreto ministeriale 16 giugno 2005«Linee guida di programmazione forestale»;
  Programma quadro nazionale per il settore forestale (PQSF) approvato in CSR il 18 dicembre 2008;
  leggi e regolamenti regionali e, in assenza, prescrizioni di massima e di Polizia forestale, previste dal R.D.L. 30 dicembre 1923, n. 3267;
  norme d'uso di gestione e salvaguardia dei boschi, di competenza regionale, formulate sulla base dei principi internazionali di gestione forestale sostenibile di competenza della Regioni, formulate, sulla base delle caratteristiche territoriali, sui principi internazionali di Gestione forestale sostenibile [Conferenze ministeriali per la protezione delle foreste in Europa (MCPFE), adottati dal Governo Italiano e dalle Amministrazioni regionali.] |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Technical support for consultancy, Forestry, Sectoral development |
| Form of aid | Other — Servizi agevolati.
  Si garantisce il rispetto dei massimali previsti |
| Budget | | Overall budget: EUR 100 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

27.6.2012

Reference number of State Aid

SA.34629 (12/N)

Member State

Italy

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Misura 114 dei Programmi di Sviluppo Rurale regionali 2007-2013.

Utilizzo dei servizi di consulenza nell'ambito — Settore forestale

Legal basis

Decreto legislativo n. 227/2001 e successive modifiche;

Decreto ministeriale 16 giugno 2005«Linee guida di programmazione forestale»;

Programma quadro nazionale per il settore forestale (PQSF) approvato in CSR il 18 dicembre 2008;

leggi e regolamenti regionali e, in assenza, prescrizioni di massima e di Polizia forestale, previste dal R.D.L. 30 dicembre 1923, n. 3267;

norme d'uso di gestione e salvaguardia dei boschi, di competenza regionale, formulate sulla base dei principi internazionali di gestione forestale sostenibile di competenza della Regioni, formulate, sulla base delle caratteristiche territoriali, sui principi internazionali di Gestione forestale sostenibile [Conferenze ministeriali per la protezione delle foreste in Europa (MCPFE), adottati dal Governo Italiano e dalle Amministrazioni regionali.]

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Technical support for consultancy, Forestry, Sectoral development

Form of aid

Other — Servizi agevolati.

Si garantisce il rispetto dei massimali previsti

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 100 million

| | Annual budget: EUR 100 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: EUR 100 million

Intensity

80 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali |
| --- |
| Via XX Settembre 20 |
| 00187 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |

Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali

Via XX Settembre 20

00187 Roma RM

ITALIA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 September 2012

2012/C 280/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3095 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 102,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4555 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80745 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5884 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2162 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4285 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,433 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 281,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0602 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5030 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3501 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2366 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2628 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1520 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5719 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5973 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 461,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,8003 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2696 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4160 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 447,27 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9770 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,078 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,1130 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,280 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6431 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7204 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,1140 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3095

JPY

Japanese yen

102,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4555

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80745

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5884

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2162

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4285

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,433

HUF

Hungarian forint

281,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0602

RON

Romanian leu

4,5030

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3501

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2366

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2628

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1520

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5719

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5973

KRW

South Korean won

1 461,73

ZAR

South African rand

10,8003

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2696

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4160

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 447,27

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9770

PHP

Philippine peso

54,078

RUB

Russian rouble

40,1130

THB

Thai baht

40,280

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6431

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7204

INR

Indian rupee

71,1140

---

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

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 6 June 2012 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva

Rapporteur: Belgium

2012/C 280/03

| 1. | The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 6 June 2012 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's concerns expressed in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 6 June 2012 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Siemens and Areva can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning Siemens and Areva can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Siemens and Areva are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on Siemens and Areva. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Siemens and Areva are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on Siemens and Areva.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Siemens and Areva, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Siemens and Areva, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Siemens and Areva, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Siemens and Areva, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/7

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva

2012/C 280/04

| 1. | Further to a complaint filed by Siemens AG (‘Siemens’), which was later withdrawn, the Commission decided to open proceedings on 21 May 2010 in relation to a number of contractual restrictions as regards a range of products within the field of civil nuclear technology, agreed between Siemens and Areva SA (‘Areva’) in the framework of their former joint venture Areva NP (the ‘JV’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Further to a complaint filed by Siemens AG (‘Siemens’), which was later withdrawn, the Commission decided to open proceedings on 21 May 2010 in relation to a number of contractual restrictions as regards a range of products within the field of civil nuclear technology, agreed between Siemens and Areva SA (‘Areva’) in the framework of their former joint venture Areva NP (the ‘JV’).

| 2. | On 16 December 2011, the Commission adopted a preliminary assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2). In its preliminary assessment, the Commission expressed the concern that the post-JV non-compete and confidentiality clauses, agreed between Areva and Siemens in their shareholders agreement, may constitute an infringement of the competition rules due to their excessive product scope and duration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On 16 December 2011, the Commission adopted a preliminary assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2). In its preliminary assessment, the Commission expressed the concern that the post-JV non-compete and confidentiality clauses, agreed between Areva and Siemens in their shareholders agreement, may constitute an infringement of the competition rules due to their excessive product scope and duration.

| 3. | On 16 February 2012, Areva and Siemens submitted commitments to meet the concerns expressed to them by the Commission in its preliminary assessment. On 14 March 2012, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union summarising the case and the commitments and inviting interested third parties to submit their observations on the commitments (3). On 17 April 2012 and 18 April 2012 respectively, the Commission informed Areva and Siemens of the outcome of the market test following the publication of the notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On 16 February 2012, Areva and Siemens submitted commitments to meet the concerns expressed to them by the Commission in its preliminary assessment. On 14 March 2012, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union summarising the case and the commitments and inviting interested third parties to submit their observations on the commitments (3). On 17 April 2012 and 18 April 2012 respectively, the Commission informed Areva and Siemens of the outcome of the market test following the publication of the notice.

| 4. | In its decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission makes the commitments offered by Areva and Siemens binding upon them and concludes that there are no longer grounds for action on its part. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In its decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission makes the commitments offered by Areva and Siemens binding upon them and concludes that there are no longer grounds for action on its part.

| 5. | I did not receive any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings in the present case (4). In view thereof, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants to the proceedings in this case has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

5.

I did not receive any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings in the present case (4). In view thereof, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 8 June 2012.

Michael ALBERS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings, OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29 (the ‘Terms of Reference’).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

2

(3)  Notice published pursuant to Article 27(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva, OJ C 75, 14.3.2012, p. 10.

3

(4)  In accordance to Article 15(1) of the Terms of Reference, parties to the proceedings offering commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 may call upon the hearing officer at any stage of the procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights.

4

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/8

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 18 June 2012

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/39.736 — Siemens/Areva)

(notified under document C(2012) 4028)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 280/05

On 18 June 2012, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the TFEU. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Competition Directorate General website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The decision is addressed to Areva SA (‘Areva’) and Siemens AG (‘Siemens’) and concerns a non-compete obligation and a confidentiality obligation agreed between Siemens and Areva in a broad field of products within the field of civil nuclear technology. The adoption of the decision makes binding the commitments that Areva and Siemens have offered in order to remedy the Commission's competition concerns related to these clauses. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The decision is addressed to Areva SA (‘Areva’) and Siemens AG (‘Siemens’) and concerns a non-compete obligation and a confidentiality obligation agreed between Siemens and Areva in a broad field of products within the field of civil nuclear technology. The adoption of the decision makes binding the commitments that Areva and Siemens have offered in order to remedy the Commission's competition concerns related to these clauses.

2.   PROCEDURE

| (2) | On 16 October 2009, Siemens filed a complaint with the Commission, followed by a supplementary complaint on 17 February 2010, in relation to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The complaints were later withdrawn by Siemens. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 16 October 2009, Siemens filed a complaint with the Commission, followed by a supplementary complaint on 17 February 2010, in relation to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The complaints were later withdrawn by Siemens.

| (3) | On 21 May 2010, the Commission opened proceedings with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, and on 16 December 2011, it adopted a Preliminary Assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 which set out the Commission’s competition concerns. These concerns related to the contractual restrictions agreed on a broad field of products within the field of civil nuclear technology, between Siemens and Areva in the framework of their former joint venture Areva NP SAS (‘Areva NP’ or ‘the JV’). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 21 May 2010, the Commission opened proceedings with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, and on 16 December 2011, it adopted a Preliminary Assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 which set out the Commission’s competition concerns. These concerns related to the contractual restrictions agreed on a broad field of products within the field of civil nuclear technology, between Siemens and Areva in the framework of their former joint venture Areva NP SAS (‘Areva NP’ or ‘the JV’).

| (4) | On 16 February 2012, Areva and Siemens submitted commitments (‘the Commitments’) to the Commission in response to the Preliminary Assessment. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 16 February 2012, Areva and Siemens submitted commitments (‘the Commitments’) to the Commission in response to the Preliminary Assessment.

| (5) | On 14 March 2012, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the Commitments and inviting interested third parties to give their observations on the Commitments within one month of publication. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 14 March 2012, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the Commitments and inviting interested third parties to give their observations on the Commitments within one month of publication.

| (6) | On 17 April 2012, the Commission informed Areva and on 18 April 2012 Siemens of the results of the market test. On 6 June 2012, the Advisory Committee approved the draft decision based on Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 17 April 2012, the Commission informed Areva and on 18 April 2012 Siemens of the results of the market test. On 6 June 2012, the Advisory Committee approved the draft decision based on Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

3.   THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

| (7) | In 2001, Siemens and Framatome SA, Areva's legal predecessor, created the full-function joint venture Areva NP, in which they combined their respective activities in relation to nuclear power plants (‘NPPs’). The Shareholders' Agreement between the parent companies of the JV includes a non-compete obligation (‘NCO’). This NCO not only covers the lifetime of the JV but, in its original form, was to continue for a period of 8 to 11 years after Siemens' loss of joint control of the JV (‘post-JV NCO’). The post-JV duration of the NCO, but not the product scope, was later reduced by an arbitral award to approximately four years. The Shareholders' Agreement also contains a confidentiality clause which has the same duration as the NCO. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In 2001, Siemens and Framatome SA, Areva's legal predecessor, created the full-function joint venture Areva NP, in which they combined their respective activities in relation to nuclear power plants (‘NPPs’). The Shareholders' Agreement between the parent companies of the JV includes a non-compete obligation (‘NCO’). This NCO not only covers the lifetime of the JV but, in its original form, was to continue for a period of 8 to 11 years after Siemens' loss of joint control of the JV (‘post-JV NCO’). The post-JV duration of the NCO, but not the product scope, was later reduced by an arbitral award to approximately four years. The Shareholders' Agreement also contains a confidentiality clause which has the same duration as the NCO.

| (8) | The post-JV NCO binds Siemens with regard to the ‘exclusive scope’ of the JV. According to the Preliminary Assessment, the post-JV NCO not only covers those markets in which Areva NP has been active itself, such as nuclear islands (‘NI’) for NPP, nuclear services and nuclear fuel assemblies, but also extends to components for NI as well as conventional islands (‘CI’) which were supplied by Siemens and in some instances only resold by Areva NP. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The post-JV NCO binds Siemens with regard to the ‘exclusive scope’ of the JV. According to the Preliminary Assessment, the post-JV NCO not only covers those markets in which Areva NP has been active itself, such as nuclear islands (‘NI’) for NPP, nuclear services and nuclear fuel assemblies, but also extends to components for NI as well as conventional islands (‘CI’) which were supplied by Siemens and in some instances only resold by Areva NP.

3.1.   The post-JV NCO

| (9) | In its Preliminary Assessment, the Commission came to the conclusion that the post-JV NCO raised concerns as to its compatibility with Article 101 of the Treaty, due to its broad scope and duration. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In its Preliminary Assessment, the Commission came to the conclusion that the post-JV NCO raised concerns as to its compatibility with Article 101 of the Treaty, due to its broad scope and duration.

| (10) | According to the Preliminary Assessment, the post-JV NCO is not ancillary to the creation of the JV since it is not directly related to it. The post-JV NCO defines the parent companies' relation to each other after the dissolution of the JV. It is, therefore, directly related to the acquisition of sole control by Areva over Areva NP, i.e. the dissolution of the JV. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

According to the Preliminary Assessment, the post-JV NCO is not ancillary to the creation of the JV since it is not directly related to it. The post-JV NCO defines the parent companies' relation to each other after the dissolution of the JV. It is, therefore, directly related to the acquisition of sole control by Areva over Areva NP, i.e. the dissolution of the JV.

| (11) | The Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that the post-JV NCO is, in principle, objectively necessary for the implementation of the acquisition of sole control of Areva over Areva NP, in order to guarantee the transfer of the full value of the acquired undertaking, Areva NP. During the lifetime of the JV, Siemens had privileged access to confidential business information of Areva NP which it could use after its exit from the JV to enter on this basis into ‘facilitated competition’ against its former subsidiary. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that the post-JV NCO is, in principle, objectively necessary for the implementation of the acquisition of sole control of Areva over Areva NP, in order to guarantee the transfer of the full value of the acquired undertaking, Areva NP. During the lifetime of the JV, Siemens had privileged access to confidential business information of Areva NP which it could use after its exit from the JV to enter on this basis into ‘facilitated competition’ against its former subsidiary.

| (12) | However, the Commission considered that the post-JV NCO is not proportionate in terms of scope and duration. In its Preliminary Assessment, the Commission took the view that a protection is only warranted as long as the confidential business information to which Siemens had access to is still of sufficient relevance and certainty to allow for such facilitated competition. In its Preliminary Assessment, the Commission considered that this is the case for a period not exceeding three years after Siemens' loss of joint control of Areva NP. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

However, the Commission considered that the post-JV NCO is not proportionate in terms of scope and duration. In its Preliminary Assessment, the Commission took the view that a protection is only warranted as long as the confidential business information to which Siemens had access to is still of sufficient relevance and certainty to allow for such facilitated competition. In its Preliminary Assessment, the Commission considered that this is the case for a period not exceeding three years after Siemens' loss of joint control of Areva NP.

| (13) | The Commission moreover took the view in its Preliminary Assessment, that protection against facilitated competition from Siemens can only be warranted in relation to those markets in which Areva NP had been active with own products and had therefore engaged in own investments, the value of which could be reduced due to such facilitated competition. Insofar as the post-JV NCO extends to Siemens' products for which Areva NP had only been active as a reseller (or not active at all), it would not fulfil the requirement of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Commission moreover took the view in its Preliminary Assessment, that protection against facilitated competition from Siemens can only be warranted in relation to those markets in which Areva NP had been active with own products and had therefore engaged in own investments, the value of which could be reduced due to such facilitated competition. Insofar as the post-JV NCO extends to Siemens' products for which Areva NP had only been active as a reseller (or not active at all), it would not fulfil the requirement of proportionality.

| (14) | In its Preliminary Assessment the Commission analysed whether a post-JV NCO was the least restrictive means to achieve the aim of protecting Areva NP against facilitated competition by Siemens. In this analysis, a differentiation between facilitated competition on the basis of confidential business information and on the basis of confidential technological know-how was warranted. According to the Preliminary Assessment, there was no less restrictive means to achieve such protection in as far as facilitated competition on the basis of confidential business information was concerned. According to the Preliminary Assessment, there would be no sufficient evidence that Siemens did have access to confidential technological know-how to an extent that would allow for facilitated competition. However, even if this had been the case, this would not justify a post-JV NCO since such confidential technological know-how can be and effectively is protected by the less restrictive means of confidentiality obligations as contained in the Shareholders' Agreement. Conversely, in relation to confidential business information, there would not appear to exist any less restrictive means, since Siemens would implicitly and inevitably take such information into account when setting up its own business strategies. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In its Preliminary Assessment the Commission analysed whether a post-JV NCO was the least restrictive means to achieve the aim of protecting Areva NP against facilitated competition by Siemens. In this analysis, a differentiation between facilitated competition on the basis of confidential business information and on the basis of confidential technological know-how was warranted. According to the Preliminary Assessment, there was no less restrictive means to achieve such protection in as far as facilitated competition on the basis of confidential business information was concerned. According to the Preliminary Assessment, there would be no sufficient evidence that Siemens did have access to confidential technological know-how to an extent that would allow for facilitated competition. However, even if this had been the case, this would not justify a post-JV NCO since such confidential technological know-how can be and effectively is protected by the less restrictive means of confidentiality obligations as contained in the Shareholders' Agreement. Conversely, in relation to confidential business information, there would not appear to exist any less restrictive means, since Siemens would implicitly and inevitably take such information into account when setting up its own business strategies.

| (15) | For this reason, the Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that a post-JV NCO is proportionate within the limits defined above for the protection of Areva NP against facilitated competition by Siemens on the basis of its previous access to Areva NP's confidential business information. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

For this reason, the Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that a post-JV NCO is proportionate within the limits defined above for the protection of Areva NP against facilitated competition by Siemens on the basis of its previous access to Areva NP's confidential business information.

3.2.   The post-JV confidentiality clause

| (16) | The Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that a confidentiality clause as agreed between the Parties amounts to a post-JV NCO, insofar as it prevents Siemens from using confidential business information (but not so in relation to confidential technological know-how) that it had access to during the lifetime of the JV. Siemens would not be able to set up own business strategies without implicitly using the information it had had access to earlier. As opposed to this, a non-disclosure obligation would not prevent Siemens from becoming active on the market. The confidentiality clause therefore amounts to a post-JV NCO insofar as it establishes a non-use obligation regarding confidential business information. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that a confidentiality clause as agreed between the Parties amounts to a post-JV NCO, insofar as it prevents Siemens from using confidential business information (but not so in relation to confidential technological know-how) that it had access to during the lifetime of the JV. Siemens would not be able to set up own business strategies without implicitly using the information it had had access to earlier. As opposed to this, a non-disclosure obligation would not prevent Siemens from becoming active on the market. The confidentiality clause therefore amounts to a post-JV NCO insofar as it establishes a non-use obligation regarding confidential business information.

| (17) | The non-use obligation regarding confidential business information can according to the Preliminary Assessment be considered ancillary to the acquisition of sole control by Areva over Areva NP for the same duration as defined for the post-JV NCO, and for the same reasons as the ones indicated for the post-JV NCO. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The non-use obligation regarding confidential business information can according to the Preliminary Assessment be considered ancillary to the acquisition of sole control by Areva over Areva NP for the same duration as defined for the post-JV NCO, and for the same reasons as the ones indicated for the post-JV NCO.

3.3.   Article 101(1) and 101(3) TFEU

| (18) | The Commission considered that, insofar as the post-JV NCO cannot be considered ancillary to the acquisition of sole control by Areva over Areva NP, it would represent a restriction of competition falling under Article 101(1) TFEU. The Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that it does not fulfil the requirements of Article 101(3) TFEU since the post-JV NCO as such cannot be considered as producing any efficiencies. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The Commission considered that, insofar as the post-JV NCO cannot be considered ancillary to the acquisition of sole control by Areva over Areva NP, it would represent a restriction of competition falling under Article 101(1) TFEU. The Commission considered in its Preliminary Assessment that it does not fulfil the requirements of Article 101(3) TFEU since the post-JV NCO as such cannot be considered as producing any efficiencies.

| (19) | Even assuming that the absence of a post-JV NCO would have led to a lower level of efficiencies created by the JV, the outcome of the assessment would not change. It is the Commission's preliminary view that in this case the analysis of the indispensability of the post-JV NCO for the achievement of possible efficiencies would not justify a more extensive post-JV NCO than the one considered as ancillary. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Even assuming that the absence of a post-JV NCO would have led to a lower level of efficiencies created by the JV, the outcome of the assessment would not change. It is the Commission's preliminary view that in this case the analysis of the indispensability of the post-JV NCO for the achievement of possible efficiencies would not justify a more extensive post-JV NCO than the one considered as ancillary.

| (20) | The same assessment under Article 101 TFEU applies to the confidentiality clause. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The same assessment under Article 101 TFEU applies to the confidentiality clause.

4.   THE COMMITMENTS AND THE MARKET TEST

| (21) | On 16 February 2012, Siemens and Areva offered Commitments to the Commission in order to meet the Commission's competition concerns.






  — | The Parties commit to set aside the post-JV NCO as it was agreed in the Shareholders' Agreement and modified following the arbitral award, and replace it by the following rules. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(21)

On 16 February 2012, Siemens and Areva offered Commitments to the Commission in order to meet the Commission's competition concerns.

—

The Parties commit to set aside the post-JV NCO as it was agreed in the Shareholders' Agreement and modified following the arbitral award, and replace it by the following rules.

| — | The Parties commit to allow Siemens to compete against Areva NP, without any restriction, as from the date at which Siemens lost joint control over Areva NP (i.e. on 16 October 2009), with the exception of activities directly related to the nuclear island of NPPs (‘Areva NP Core Products and Core Services’) which are specified in an exhaustive list. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Parties commit to allow Siemens to compete against Areva NP, without any restriction, as from the date at which Siemens lost joint control over Areva NP (i.e. on 16 October 2009), with the exception of activities directly related to the nuclear island of NPPs (‘Areva NP Core Products and Core Services’) which are specified in an exhaustive list.

| — | Competition by Siemens against Areva NP will only be prevented in relation to those Core Products and Core Services for a duration of three years following Areva's acquisition of sole control over Areva NP, and more precisely until 16 October 2012. |
| --- | --- |

—

Competition by Siemens against Areva NP will only be prevented in relation to those Core Products and Core Services for a duration of three years following Areva's acquisition of sole control over Areva NP, and more precisely until 16 October 2012.

| (22) | Siemens will be prevented from using any confidential information in relation to Core Products and Core Services to which it may have had access during the lifetime of the JV until 16 October 2012. Even beyond that date, Siemens will be prevented from making available to third parties Areva NP's corporate constitution and administration documents or confidential written technical information, or use such technical information. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Siemens will be prevented from using any confidential information in relation to Core Products and Core Services to which it may have had access during the lifetime of the JV until 16 October 2012. Even beyond that date, Siemens will be prevented from making available to third parties Areva NP's corporate constitution and administration documents or confidential written technical information, or use such technical information.

5.   PROPORTIONALITY OF THE COMMITMENTS

| (23) | The Commitments meet the concerns identified by the Commission in the Preliminary Assessment in a sufficient manner, without being disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The Commitments meet the concerns identified by the Commission in the Preliminary Assessment in a sufficient manner, without being disproportionate.

| (24) | The Commitments are sufficient since they fully address the Commission's concerns as set out in its Preliminary Assessment. The post-JV NCO is reduced to a maximum of three years for the markets in which Areva NP has been active with own products (in the Commitments defined as ‘Core products and Core services’). It is removed for all other products. The same applies for the post-JV confidentiality clause insofar as it represents a non-use obligation for Areva NP's confidential business information. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The Commitments are sufficient since they fully address the Commission's concerns as set out in its Preliminary Assessment. The post-JV NCO is reduced to a maximum of three years for the markets in which Areva NP has been active with own products (in the Commitments defined as ‘Core products and Core services’). It is removed for all other products. The same applies for the post-JV confidentiality clause insofar as it represents a non-use obligation for Areva NP's confidential business information.

| (25) | The Commitments are not excessive since there is no less restrictive means for addressing the Commission's concerns than to lift the clauses insofar as they apply to product markets and for a duration that exceed what can be accepted as ancillary or covered by Article 101(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commitments are not excessive since there is no less restrictive means for addressing the Commission's concerns than to lift the clauses insofar as they apply to product markets and for a duration that exceed what can be accepted as ancillary or covered by Article 101(3) TFEU.

6.   CONCLUSION

| (26) | The decision makes the Commitments binding on Siemens and Areva. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The decision makes the Commitments binding on Siemens and Areva.

---

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

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/11

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 280/06

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 | 10.8.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 10.8.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or group of stocks | HKE/8ABDE. |
| Species | Hake (Merluccius merluccius) |
| Zone | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS28TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

10.8.2012

Duration

10.8.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Belgium

Stock or group of stocks

HKE/8ABDE.

Species

Hake (Merluccius merluccius)

Zone

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS28TQ43

---

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

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/11

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 280/07

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 | 10.8.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 10.8.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or group of stocks | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Species | Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Zone | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS29TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

10.8.2012

Duration

10.8.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Belgium

Stock or group of stocks

LEZ/8ABDE.

Species

Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Zone

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS29TQ43

---

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

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/12

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 280/08

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 | 10.8.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 10.8.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or group of stocks | NEP/8ABDE. |
| Species | Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) |
| Zone | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS30TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

10.8.2012

Duration

10.8.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Belgium

Stock or group of stocks

NEP/8ABDE.

Species

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)

Zone

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS30TQ43

---

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

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/12

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 280/09

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 | 13.8.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 13.8.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | USK/567EI. |
| Species | Tusk (Brosme brosme) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of V, VI and VII |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS25TQ44 |

Date and time of closure

13.8.2012

Duration

13.8.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

USK/567EI.

Species

Tusk (Brosme brosme)

Zone

EU and international waters of V, VI and VII

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS25TQ44

---

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

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/13

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 280/10

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 | 10.8.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 10.8.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or group of stocks | SRX/89-C |
| Species | Skates and rays (rajiformes) |
| Zone | EU waters of VIII and IX |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS27TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

10.8.2012

Duration

10.8.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Belgium

Stock or group of stocks

SRX/89-C

Species

Skates and rays (rajiformes)

Zone

EU waters of VIII and IX

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS27TQ43

---

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

---

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/13

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 280/11

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 | 10.8.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 10.8.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or group of stocks | PLE/8/3411 |
| Species | Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) |
| Zone | VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS26TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

10.8.2012

Duration

10.8.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Belgium

Stock or group of stocks

PLE/8/3411

Species

Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa)

Zone

VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS26TQ43

---

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

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 15.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6680 — CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill/CVCIGP II Client Rosehill/CNK/Holidaybreak)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 280/12

| 1. | On 7 September 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘the Merger Regulation’) by which CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill Limited and CVCIGP II Client Rosehill Limited (Mauritius) and Cox & Kings Limited (CNK, India) acquire joint control over Holidaybreak Limited within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 7 September 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘the Merger Regulation’) by which CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill Limited and CVCIGP II Client Rosehill Limited (Mauritius) and Cox & Kings Limited (CNK, India) acquire joint control over Holidaybreak Limited within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill Limited and CVCIGP II Client Rosehill Limited are private equity funds whose capital is owned by certain Citigroup private equity funds, and which are managed by Citigroup Venture Capital International Investment G.P. Limited, an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill Limited and CVCIGP II Client Rosehill Limited are private equity funds whose capital is owned by certain Citigroup private equity funds, and which are managed by Citigroup Venture Capital International Investment G.P. Limited, an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc,

| — | CNK is a travel and tours group with operations in 20 countries around the world,including India, the United Kingdom, Australia, Dubai, Japan and the United States. CNK currently owns all of the issued share capital of Holidaybreak via its wholly owned subsidiary Prometheon, |
| --- | --- |

—

CNK is a travel and tours group with operations in 20 countries around the world,including India, the United Kingdom, Australia, Dubai, Japan and the United States. CNK currently owns all of the issued share capital of Holidaybreak via its wholly owned subsidiary Prometheon,

| — | Holidaybreak is a European specialist holiday group active mainly in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany and Ireland, with some sales in other European countries. Holidaybreak is engaged in the provision of hotel short-breaks, worldwide adventure and activity holidays, education and language travel and mobile-home and camping holidays, and operates a small number of hotels. |
| --- | --- |

—

Holidaybreak is a European specialist holiday group active mainly in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany and Ireland, with some sales in other European countries. Holidaybreak is engaged in the provision of hotel short-breaks, worldwide adventure and activity holidays, education and language travel and mobile-home and camping holidays, and operates a small number of hotels.

| 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.6680 — CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill/CVCIGP II Client Rosehill/CNK/Holidaybreak, 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.6680 — CVCIGP II Employee Rosehill/CVCIGP II Client Rosehill/CNK/Holidaybreak, 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’).

---