# Official Journal C 201/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.201.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 201 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5613 July 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.201.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 201

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5613 July 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 201/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6917 — FSI/Merit/Yildirim/CMA CGM) (
  1
  ) |
| 2013/C 201/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6951 — Bain Capital/FTE) (
  1
  ) |

Notice No

Contents

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 201/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6917 — FSI/Merit/Yildirim/CMA CGM) (
  1
  )

1

2013/C 201/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6951 — Bain Capital/FTE) (
  1
  )

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2013/C 201/03 | Council Decision of 26 June 2013 adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2013 |
| 2013/C 201/04 | Council Decision of 9 July 2013 adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2013 |
| 2013/C 201/05 | Council Decision of 9 July 2013 adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2013 |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 201/06 | Euro exchange rates |
| 2013/C 201/07 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 May 2013 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39595 — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada — Rapporteur: Portugal |
| 2013/C 201/08 | Final report of the Hearing Officer — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada (AT.39595) |
| 2013/C 201/09 | Summary of Commission Decision of 23 May 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39595 — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada) (notified under document C(2013) 2836 final) |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2013/C 201/10 | List of registered and certified credit rating agencies |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2013/C 201/03

Council Decision of 26 June 2013 adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2013

2013/C 201/04

Council Decision of 9 July 2013 adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2013

2013/C 201/05

Council Decision of 9 July 2013 adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2013

European Commission

2013/C 201/06

Euro exchange rates

2013/C 201/07

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 May 2013 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39595 — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada — Rapporteur: Portugal

2013/C 201/08

Final report of the Hearing Officer — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada (AT.39595)

2013/C 201/09

Summary of Commission Decision of 23 May 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39595 — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada) (notified under document C(2013) 2836 final)

(notified under document C(2013) 2836 final)

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2013/C 201/10

List of registered and certified credit rating agencies

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 201/11 | Decision to close the formal investigation procedure after withdrawal by Member State — State aid — Spain (Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) — Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification — State aid SA.31273 (12/C) (ex N 313/10) — Ultracongelados Antártida SA (
  1
  ) |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 201/11

Decision to close the formal investigation procedure after withdrawal by Member State — State aid — Spain (Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) — Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification — State aid SA.31273 (12/C) (ex N 313/10) — Ultracongelados Antártida SA (
  1
  )

1

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6917 — FSI/Merit/Yildirim/CMA CGM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 201/01

On 25 June 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6917. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6917. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6951 — Bain Capital/FTE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 201/02

On 8 July 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6951. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6951. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 June 2013

adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2013

2013/C 201/03

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1), and in particular Article 41 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2),

| — | on 18 March 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for the financial year 2013, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 18 March 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 1 to the general budget for the financial year 2013,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 1 of the European Union for the financial year 2013 was adopted on 26 June 2013.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 26 June 2013.

For the Council

The President

M. NOONAN

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1,

1

(2)  OJ L 66, 8.3.2013, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 134, 18.5.2013, p. 21.

2

---

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 9 July 2013

adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2013

2013/C 201/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1), and in particular Article 41 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | The Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2).

| — | On 2 April 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2013, |
| --- | --- |

—

On 2 April 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 2 to the general budget for the financial year 2013,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2013 was adopted on 9 July 2013.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/).

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

For the Council

The President

R. ŠADŽIUS

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 66, 8.3.2013, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 134, 18.5.2013, p. 21.

2

---

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/4

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 9 July 2013

adopting the Council's position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2013

2013/C 201/05

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,

Whereas:

| — | the Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

the Union's budget for the financial year 2013 was definitively adopted on 12 December 2012 (2),

| — | on 15 April 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2013. |
| --- | --- |

—

on 15 April 2013, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2013.

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2013 was adopted on 9 July 2013.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/).

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

For the Council

The President

R. ŠADŽIUS

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 66, 8.3.2013, p. 1, with corrigendum in OJ L 134, 18.5.2013, p. 21.

2

---

European Commission

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 July 2013

2013/C 201/06

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3034 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,75 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4581 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86270 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7050 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2388 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9130 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,951 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 292,82 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7027 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3193 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4227 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5599 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4436 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3537 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1106 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6752 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6500 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 467,36 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,0930 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0005 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5320 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 021,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1416 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,563 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,6850 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,640 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9542 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7474 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,7220 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3034

JPY

Japanese yen

129,75

DKK

Danish krone

7,4581

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86270

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7050

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2388

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9130

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,951

HUF

Hungarian forint

292,82

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7027

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3193

RON

Romanian leu

4,4227

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5599

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4436

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3537

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1106

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6752

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6500

KRW

South Korean won

1 467,36

ZAR

South African rand

13,0930

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0005

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5320

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 021,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1416

PHP

Philippine peso

56,563

RUB

Russian rouble

42,6850

THB

Thai baht

40,640

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9542

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7474

INR

Indian rupee

77,7220

---

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

---

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 May 2013 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39595 — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada

Rapporteur: Portugal

2013/C 201/07

| 1. | The majority of the Advisory Committee shares the Commission's assessment under Articles 101(1) and 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 23 April 2013. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The majority of the Advisory Committee shares the Commission's assessment under Articles 101(1) and 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 23 April 2013. A minority abstains.

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

2.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains.

| 3. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Air Canada, United Airlines and Lufthansa are suitable, necessary and proportionate. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Air Canada, United Airlines and Lufthansa are suitable, necessary and proportionate. A minority abstains.

| 4. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Air Canada, United Airlines and Lufthansa, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Air Canada, United Airlines and Lufthansa, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account any other points raised during the discussion.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

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

---

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/7

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada

(AT.39595)

2013/C 201/08

| (1) | This proceeding concerns the agreement concluded between Air Canada, Continental Airlines, Deutsche Lufthansa and United Air Lines, in relation to the establishment of a revenue-sharing joint venture on transatlantic routes (‘A++ Agreement’) (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

This proceeding concerns the agreement concluded between Air Canada, Continental Airlines, Deutsche Lufthansa and United Air Lines, in relation to the establishment of a revenue-sharing joint venture on transatlantic routes (‘A++ Agreement’) (2).

| (2) | The A++ Agreement covers all passenger air transport services of the airlines on routes between Europe and North America. The airlines agree to cooperate on key parameters of competition, such as pricing, capacity, schedules and marketing. The joint venture does not qualify as ‘full function’ and therefore, the agreement is subject to Article 101 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The A++ Agreement covers all passenger air transport services of the airlines on routes between Europe and North America. The airlines agree to cooperate on key parameters of competition, such as pricing, capacity, schedules and marketing. The joint venture does not qualify as ‘full function’ and therefore, the agreement is subject to Article 101 TFEU.

| (3) | On 8 April 2009, the Commission decided to open proceedings with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) in relation to the A++ Agreement. On 10 October 2012, the Commission adopted a preliminary assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and notified it to the carriers by letter of 10 October 2012. In the preliminary assessment, the Commission took the view that the cooperation raised concerns as to its compatibility with Article 101 TFEU in relation to the Frankfurt–New York route for premium passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 8 April 2009, the Commission decided to open proceedings with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3) in relation to the A++ Agreement. On 10 October 2012, the Commission adopted a preliminary assessment pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and notified it to the carriers by letter of 10 October 2012. In the preliminary assessment, the Commission took the view that the cooperation raised concerns as to its compatibility with Article 101 TFEU in relation to the Frankfurt–New York route for premium passengers.

| (4) | On 11 December 2012, the carriers submitted commitments in order to meet the Commission's concerns. On 21 December 2012, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the commitments and inviting third parties to submit comments on the proposal (4). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 11 December 2012, the carriers submitted commitments in order to meet the Commission's concerns. On 21 December 2012, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the case and the commitments and inviting third parties to submit comments on the proposal (4).

| (5) | In response to the notice, the Commission received observations from four interested third parties. Thereafter, the carriers submitted a revised commitment proposal. Pursuant to the proposed commitments, for a period of 10 years, the carriers commit themselves to take a number of measures, i.e. slot releases, fare combinability agreements, pro-rate agreements and opening of their frequent flyer programmes, to facilitate rivals' entry into the Frankfurt–New York route. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In response to the notice, the Commission received observations from four interested third parties. Thereafter, the carriers submitted a revised commitment proposal. Pursuant to the proposed commitments, for a period of 10 years, the carriers commit themselves to take a number of measures, i.e. slot releases, fare combinability agreements, pro-rate agreements and opening of their frequent flyer programmes, to facilitate rivals' entry into the Frankfurt–New York route.

| (6) | In its decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission makes the commitments proposed by the airlines binding upon them and concludes that, in light of the commitments offered, there are no longer grounds for action on its part, and thus the proceedings in this case should be brought to an end. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In its decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission makes the commitments proposed by the airlines binding upon them and concludes that, in light of the commitments offered, there are no longer grounds for action on its part, and thus the proceedings in this case should be brought to an end.

| (7) | I did not receive any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings in the present case (5). In view thereof, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all parties in this case has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

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

Brussels, 8 May 2013.

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).

1

(2)  Continental Airlines and United Air Lines merged in 2010. However, the merger between the two carriers was completed only on 31 March 2013. Continental Airlines has been a party to the proceeding until the date of the merger's completion.

2

(3)  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).

3

(4)  Communication of the Commission published pursuant to Article 27(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Case COMP/39.595 — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada (notified under document C(2012) 9787) (OJ C 396, 21.12.2012, p. 21).

4

(5)  In accordance with Article 15(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, 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.

5

---

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/8

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 23 May 2013

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(Case AT.39595 — Continental/United/Lufthansa/Air Canada)

(notified under document C(2013) 2836 final)

(Only the English text is authentic)

2013/C 201/09

On 23 May 2013, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

Introduction

| (1) | The Decision makes legally binding the commitments offered by Air Canada (‘AC’), United Airlines, Inc. (‘UA’) (2) and Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘LH’) (together ‘the parties’) under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty. This Decision concerns the agreement (‘A++ Agreement’) concluded between the parties in relation to the establishment of a revenue-sharing joint venture (‘A++ joint venture’), which covers among others all passenger air transport services of the parties on routes between Europe and North America. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision makes legally binding the commitments offered by Air Canada (‘AC’), United Airlines, Inc. (‘UA’) (2) and Deutsche Lufthansa AG (‘LH’) (together ‘the parties’) under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty. This Decision concerns the agreement (‘A++ Agreement’) concluded between the parties in relation to the establishment of a revenue-sharing joint venture (‘A++ joint venture’), which covers among others all passenger air transport services of the parties on routes between Europe and North America.

Procedure

| (2) | On 8 April 2009, the Commission opened formal proceedings with a view to taking a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. On 10 October 2012, the Commission adopted a preliminary assessment. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 8 April 2009, the Commission opened formal proceedings with a view to taking a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. On 10 October 2012, the Commission adopted a preliminary assessment.

| (3) | On 11 December 2012, the parties proposed commitments to address the Commission's preliminary concerns on the relevant market. On 21 December 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 proposed commitments, and inviting interested third parties to give their observations. Following the comments received from third parties, on 15 May 2013, the parties submitted the signed version of the final commitments. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 11 December 2012, the parties proposed commitments to address the Commission's preliminary concerns on the relevant market. On 21 December 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 proposed commitments, and inviting interested third parties to give their observations. Following the comments received from third parties, on 15 May 2013, the parties submitted the signed version of the final commitments.

| (4) | On 7 May 2013, the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions was consulted and gave a positive opinion. On 8 May 2013, the Hearing Officer issued his final report. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 7 May 2013, the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions was consulted and gave a positive opinion. On 8 May 2013, the Hearing Officer issued his final report.

Concerns expressed in the preliminary assessment

Assessment under Article 101(1) and (3) of the Treaty

| (5) | The preliminary assessment of 10 October 2012 set out the preliminary concerns of the Commission that the parties may have restricted competition in the premium market (3) on the Frankfurt–New York route both by object and by effect through their cooperation under the A++ Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The preliminary assessment of 10 October 2012 set out the preliminary concerns of the Commission that the parties may have restricted competition in the premium market (3) on the Frankfurt–New York route both by object and by effect through their cooperation under the A++ Agreement.

| (6) | The Commission took the preliminary view that the A++ Agreement by its very nature aimed at, and had the potential of, restricting competition. This is because the parties' cooperation in the A++ joint venture completely eliminated competition between these parties on key parameters of competition, such as price and capacity. Within the metal-neutral revenue-sharing joint venture, the partner airlines' individual incentives on transatlantic routes were replaced by the common interest and benefit of the joint venture. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Commission took the preliminary view that the A++ Agreement by its very nature aimed at, and had the potential of, restricting competition. This is because the parties' cooperation in the A++ joint venture completely eliminated competition between these parties on key parameters of competition, such as price and capacity. Within the metal-neutral revenue-sharing joint venture, the partner airlines' individual incentives on transatlantic routes were replaced by the common interest and benefit of the joint venture.

| (7) | The Commission also preliminarily considered that the parties' cooperation under the A++ Agreement led to appreciable negative effects for premium passengers on the Frankfurt–New York route, since competition that existed between LH and CO before the cooperation in the A++ joint venture most likely would not be replaced by competition from the parties' competitors due to substantial barriers to entry and expansion. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Commission also preliminarily considered that the parties' cooperation under the A++ Agreement led to appreciable negative effects for premium passengers on the Frankfurt–New York route, since competition that existed between LH and CO before the cooperation in the A++ joint venture most likely would not be replaced by competition from the parties' competitors due to substantial barriers to entry and expansion.

| (8) | Therefore, in the Commission's preliminary view, the cooperation between the parties under the A++ Agreement was incompatible with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Frankfurt–New York route in relation to premium passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Therefore, in the Commission's preliminary view, the cooperation between the parties under the A++ Agreement was incompatible with Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Frankfurt–New York route in relation to premium passengers.

| (9) | The parties argued that the A++ Agreement produces efficiencies for both the passengers travelling on the route of concern and the passengers travelling on related behind and beyond routes. The Commission decided to broaden the test for the out-of-market efficiencies set out in paragraph 43 of the Article 101(3) of the Treaty Guidelines. Under this broadened test, the out-of-market efficiencies on related markets can be considered in the competitive assessment, to the extent they benefit the consumers who are also harmed by the cooperation. This assessment therefore does not involve weighing up harm to one customer group versus benefits to another customer group. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The parties argued that the A++ Agreement produces efficiencies for both the passengers travelling on the route of concern and the passengers travelling on related behind and beyond routes. The Commission decided to broaden the test for the out-of-market efficiencies set out in paragraph 43 of the Article 101(3) of the Treaty Guidelines. Under this broadened test, the out-of-market efficiencies on related markets can be considered in the competitive assessment, to the extent they benefit the consumers who are also harmed by the cooperation. This assessment therefore does not involve weighing up harm to one customer group versus benefits to another customer group.

| (10) | Under the broadened test, the parties should first demonstrate that the route of concern and its behind and beyond routes are related. It is necessary to demonstrate a considerable degree of commonality in the consumer groups that travel on the route of concern and these related behind and beyond routes, and that there is a two-way flow of efficiencies across these routes. Secondly, the parties should quantify efficiencies on related behind and beyond routes that accrue to those consumers who also travel on the route of concern. Finally, it has to be verified that claimed efficiencies (both in-market and out-of-market) meet all other conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on efficiency gains, fair share for consumers, indispensability of restrictions, and no possibility to eliminate competition. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Under the broadened test, the parties should first demonstrate that the route of concern and its behind and beyond routes are related. It is necessary to demonstrate a considerable degree of commonality in the consumer groups that travel on the route of concern and these related behind and beyond routes, and that there is a two-way flow of efficiencies across these routes. Secondly, the parties should quantify efficiencies on related behind and beyond routes that accrue to those consumers who also travel on the route of concern. Finally, it has to be verified that claimed efficiencies (both in-market and out-of-market) meet all other conditions of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on efficiency gains, fair share for consumers, indispensability of restrictions, and no possibility to eliminate competition.

| (11) | Following the assessment of efficiencies presented by the parties under the broadened test, it was however concluded that under Article 101(3) of the Treaty, the level of demonstrated efficiencies (in-market and out-of-market) was likely to be insufficient to outweigh the likely significant negative effects resulting from the restriction of competition under Article 101(1) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Following the assessment of efficiencies presented by the parties under the broadened test, it was however concluded that under Article 101(3) of the Treaty, the level of demonstrated efficiencies (in-market and out-of-market) was likely to be insufficient to outweigh the likely significant negative effects resulting from the restriction of competition under Article 101(1) of the Treaty.

Initial and the final commitments

| (12) | On 11 December 2012, the parties proposed commitments to address the Commission's preliminary concerns for premium passengers on the Frankfurt–New York route. The parties offered:






  (a) | to make arrival and departure slot pairs available at Frankfurt airport and/or New York JFK/Newark Liberty airports — at a competitor's choice — to allow to operate up to one additional daily frequency (and up to three daily frequencies should existing competitors' services on the route be withdrawn). The offer is subject to a number of conditions, including that a competitor has to exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain the necessary slots through the general slot allocation process. The parties also do not have to release more than one slot pair at New York JFK airport; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(12)

On 11 December 2012, the parties proposed commitments to address the Commission's preliminary concerns for premium passengers on the Frankfurt–New York route. The parties offered:

(a)

to make arrival and departure slot pairs available at Frankfurt airport and/or New York JFK/Newark Liberty airports — at a competitor's choice — to allow to operate up to one additional daily frequency (and up to three daily frequencies should existing competitors' services on the route be withdrawn). The offer is subject to a number of conditions, including that a competitor has to exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain the necessary slots through the general slot allocation process. The parties also do not have to release more than one slot pair at New York JFK airport;

| (b) | to enter into fare combinability agreements with competitors for premium passengers (4). Eligible competitors are all competitors which operate or have started to operate new or increased non-stop services on the Frankfurt–New York route, and do not operate a hub/focus-city airport at both ends of the route; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to enter into fare combinability agreements with competitors for premium passengers (4). Eligible competitors are all competitors which operate or have started to operate new or increased non-stop services on the Frankfurt–New York route, and do not operate a hub/focus-city airport at both ends of the route;

| (c) | to enter into special prorate agreements for traffic with an origin and a destination in Europe/Israel or North America/the Caribbean/Central America, provided that part of the journey involves the Frankfurt–New York route (5). Eligible competitors are all competitors which have started to operate new or increased non-stop services on the Frankfurt–New York route, and alone or in combination with their alliance partners do not operate a hub/focus-city airport at both ends of the Frankfurt–New York route; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to enter into special prorate agreements for traffic with an origin and a destination in Europe/Israel or North America/the Caribbean/Central America, provided that part of the journey involves the Frankfurt–New York route (5). Eligible competitors are all competitors which have started to operate new or increased non-stop services on the Frankfurt–New York route, and alone or in combination with their alliance partners do not operate a hub/focus-city airport at both ends of the Frankfurt–New York route;

| (d) | to open their frequent flyer programmes to a competitor which commences or increases services on the route, if such competitor does not have a comparable programme of its own and does not participate in any of the parties’ frequent flyer programmes. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

to open their frequent flyer programmes to a competitor which commences or increases services on the route, if such competitor does not have a comparable programme of its own and does not participate in any of the parties’ frequent flyer programmes.

| (13) | The parties offer to give responsibility to a trustee to monitor the application of the commitments. In case of disagreement between a new entrant and the parties on the commitments, the parties offer a dispute resolution process where an arbitral tribunal will ultimately decide on the matter. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The parties offer to give responsibility to a trustee to monitor the application of the commitments. In case of disagreement between a new entrant and the parties on the commitments, the parties offer a dispute resolution process where an arbitral tribunal will ultimately decide on the matter.

| (14) | In response to the comments of the market test, the parties submitted the signed version of the final commitments on 15 May 2013. Other than a few technical adjustments and clarifications, these revised commitments differ from the initially offered commitments in particular in relation to the scope of the special prorate agreement commitment. The scope of the commitment has been extended from 15 to 20 routes on which the parties will offer access for competitors to their connecting traffic, subject to certain conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In response to the comments of the market test, the parties submitted the signed version of the final commitments on 15 May 2013. Other than a few technical adjustments and clarifications, these revised commitments differ from the initially offered commitments in particular in relation to the scope of the special prorate agreement commitment. The scope of the commitment has been extended from 15 to 20 routes on which the parties will offer access for competitors to their connecting traffic, subject to certain conditions.

Assessment and proportionality of the proposed commitments

| (15) | The commitments in their final form are sufficient to address the preliminary concerns identified by the Commission in its preliminary assessment without being disproportionate. The commitments facilitate entry or expansion on the Frankfurt–New York route for premium passengers by lowering barriers to entry or expansion, as well as strengthen the existing services of competitors. They aim at providing competitors with improved access to connecting traffic and with the possibility to conclude fare combinability agreements and cooperation agreements on frequent flier programmes with the parties. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The commitments in their final form are sufficient to address the preliminary concerns identified by the Commission in its preliminary assessment without being disproportionate. The commitments facilitate entry or expansion on the Frankfurt–New York route for premium passengers by lowering barriers to entry or expansion, as well as strengthen the existing services of competitors. They aim at providing competitors with improved access to connecting traffic and with the possibility to conclude fare combinability agreements and cooperation agreements on frequent flier programmes with the parties.

| (16) | The Commission considers that the scope of the final commitments as regards slots is sufficient and adequate to make them effective and attractive enough to encourage the actual take-up. This is especially true if combined with the other elements of the final commitments, such as the fare combinability and special prorate agreements. The fare combinability commitment will mitigate competitors' frequency disadvantage against the parties, by enabling these competitors to offer more combined frequencies. It will make competitors' services more attractive for premium passengers and, therefore, will both improve the long-term sustainability of the existing competitors and decrease barriers to entry for new competitors. The commitment in relation to special prorate agreements will enable a new entrant to have the necessary access to connecting traffic of the parties on advantageous terms at both ends of the route. It will reduce the hub advantage of the parties against new entrants and will therefore incentivise entry by competitors. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Commission considers that the scope of the final commitments as regards slots is sufficient and adequate to make them effective and attractive enough to encourage the actual take-up. This is especially true if combined with the other elements of the final commitments, such as the fare combinability and special prorate agreements. The fare combinability commitment will mitigate competitors' frequency disadvantage against the parties, by enabling these competitors to offer more combined frequencies. It will make competitors' services more attractive for premium passengers and, therefore, will both improve the long-term sustainability of the existing competitors and decrease barriers to entry for new competitors. The commitment in relation to special prorate agreements will enable a new entrant to have the necessary access to connecting traffic of the parties on advantageous terms at both ends of the route. It will reduce the hub advantage of the parties against new entrants and will therefore incentivise entry by competitors.

Conclusion

| (17) | The Decision makes the commitments proposed by the undertakings concerned legally binding upon them. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The Decision makes the commitments proposed by the undertakings concerned legally binding upon them.

| (18) | In light of the final commitments offered by the parties, the Commission considers that there are no longer grounds for action on its part. The Decision shall be binding for a period of 10 years from the date of adoption of the Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

In light of the final commitments offered by the parties, the Commission considers that there are no longer grounds for action on its part. The Decision shall be binding for a period of 10 years from the date of adoption of the Decision.

---

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

(2)  In 2010, Continental Airlines (CO) and United Air Lines merged (Case COMP/M.5889 — United Air Lines/Continental Airlines). On 31 March 2013, the merger between those two carriers was completed. CO was a party to the antitrust investigation in this case until the date of the merger's completion.

(3)  The premium market includes passengers buying first class, business class and flexible economy tickets.

(4)  Fare combinability agreement allows for the possibility for a competitor (or travel agents) to offer a return trip to premium passengers, thus comprising a non-stop service provided one way by one of the parties, and the other way by that competitor.

(5)  Special prorate agreements allow interested airlines to obtain favourable terms from the parties to carry connecting passengers on flights of the parties on short-haul routes in Europe and North America (and selected other countries) in order to ‘feed’ their own transatlantic services on the Frankfurt–New York route by transferring these passengers onto their own transatlantic flights.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/11

---

List of registered and certified credit rating agencies

2013/C 201/10

The credit rating agencies listed below have been registered or certified in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies (‘the Credit Rating Agencies Regulation’).

The list is published by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in accordance with Article 18(3) of the Credit Rating Agencies Regulation and is updated within five working days of adoption of a registration or certification decision. The European Commission republishes the list in the Official Journal of the European Union within 30 days of any update. There may therefore be differences between the list published by ESMA and the list available in the Official Journal during that period.

Certified or registered CRAs

Date of last update: 1 July 2013

| Name of CRA | Country of residence | Status | Effective date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Euler Hermes Rating GmbH | Germany | Registered | 16 November 2010 |
| Japan Credit Rating Agency Ltd | Japan | Certified | 6 January 2011 |
| Feri EuroRating Services AG | Germany | Registered | 14 April 2011 |
| BCRA — Credit Rating Agency AD | Bulgaria | Registered | 6 April 2011 |
| Creditreform Rating AG | Germany | Registered | 18 May 2011 |
| Scope Credit Rating GmbH (formerly PSR Rating GmbH) | Germany | Registered | 24 May 2011 |
| ICAP Group SA | Greece | Registered | 7 July 2011 |
| GBB-Rating Gesellschaft für Bonitätsbeurteilung mbH | Germany | Registered | 28 July 2011 |
| ASSEKURATA Assekuranz Rating-Agentur GmbH | Germany | Registered | 18 August 2011 |
| Companhia Portuguesa de Rating, SA (CPR) | Portugal | Registered | 26 August 2011 |
| AM Best Europe — Rating Services Ltd (AMBERS) | UK | Registered | 8 September 2011 |
| DBRS Ratings Limited | UK | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Fitch France S.A.S. | France | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Fitch Deutschland GmbH | Germany | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Fitch Italia SpA | Italy | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Fitch Polska SA | Poland | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Fitch Ratings España S.A.U. | Spain | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Fitch Ratings Limited | UK | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Fitch Ratings CIS Limited | UK | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Moody’s Investors Service Cyprus Ltd | Cyprus | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Moody’s France S.A.S. | France | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Moody’s Deutschland GmbH | Germany | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Moody’s Italia Srl | Italy | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Moody’s Investors Service España SA | Spain | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Moody’s Investors Service Ltd | UK | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services France S.A.S. | France | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Italy Srl | Italy | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe Limited | UK | Registered | 31 October 2011 |
| CRIF SpA | Italy | Registered | 22 December 2011 |
| Capital Intelligence (Cyprus) Ltd | Cyprus | Registered | 8 May 2012 |
| European Rating Agency, a.s. | Slovakia | Registered | 30 July 2012 |
| Axesor SA | Spain | Registered | 1 October 2012 |
| CERVED Group SpA | Italy | Registered | 20 December 2012 |
| Kroll Bond Rating Agency | USA | Certified | 20 March 2013 |
| The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd | UK | Registered | 3 June 2013 |
| Dagong Europe Credit Rating Srl (Dagong Europe) | Italy | Registered | 13 June 2013 |
| Spread Research | France | Registered | 1 July 2013 |

Name of CRA

Country of residence

Status

Effective date

Euler Hermes Rating GmbH

Germany

Registered

16 November 2010

Japan Credit Rating Agency Ltd

Japan

Certified

6 January 2011

Feri EuroRating Services AG

Germany

Registered

14 April 2011

BCRA — Credit Rating Agency AD

Bulgaria

Registered

6 April 2011

Creditreform Rating AG

Germany

Registered

18 May 2011

Scope Credit Rating GmbH (formerly PSR Rating GmbH)

Germany

Registered

24 May 2011

ICAP Group SA

Greece

Registered

7 July 2011

GBB-Rating Gesellschaft für Bonitätsbeurteilung mbH

Germany

Registered

28 July 2011

ASSEKURATA Assekuranz Rating-Agentur GmbH

Germany

Registered

18 August 2011

Companhia Portuguesa de Rating, SA (CPR)

Portugal

Registered

26 August 2011

AM Best Europe — Rating Services Ltd (AMBERS)

UK

Registered

8 September 2011

DBRS Ratings Limited

UK

Registered

31 October 2011

Fitch France S.A.S.

France

Registered

31 October 2011

Fitch Deutschland GmbH

Germany

Registered

31 October 2011

Fitch Italia SpA

Italy

Registered

31 October 2011

Fitch Polska SA

Poland

Registered

31 October 2011

Fitch Ratings España S.A.U.

Spain

Registered

31 October 2011

Fitch Ratings Limited

UK

Registered

31 October 2011

Fitch Ratings CIS Limited

UK

Registered

31 October 2011

Moody’s Investors Service Cyprus Ltd

Cyprus

Registered

31 October 2011

Moody’s France S.A.S.

France

Registered

31 October 2011

Moody’s Deutschland GmbH

Germany

Registered

31 October 2011

Moody’s Italia Srl

Italy

Registered

31 October 2011

Moody’s Investors Service España SA

Spain

Registered

31 October 2011

Moody’s Investors Service Ltd

UK

Registered

31 October 2011

Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services France S.A.S.

France

Registered

31 October 2011

Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Italy Srl

Italy

Registered

31 October 2011

Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe Limited

UK

Registered

31 October 2011

CRIF SpA

Italy

Registered

22 December 2011

Capital Intelligence (Cyprus) Ltd

Cyprus

Registered

8 May 2012

European Rating Agency, a.s.

Slovakia

Registered

30 July 2012

Axesor SA

Spain

Registered

1 October 2012

CERVED Group SpA

Italy

Registered

20 December 2012

Kroll Bond Rating Agency

USA

Certified

20 March 2013

The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd

UK

Registered

3 June 2013

Dagong Europe Credit Rating Srl (Dagong Europe)

Italy

Registered

13 June 2013

Spread Research

France

Registered

1 July 2013

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 13.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/13

---

DECISION TO CLOSE THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AFTER WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER STATE

State aid — Spain

(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification

State aid SA.31273 (12/C) (ex N 313/10) — Ultracongelados Antártida SA

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 201/11

The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, initiated on 21 November 2012 (1) in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Spain has withdrawn its notification on 13 December 2012 and will not pursue this aid project further.

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 21.11.2012, p. 11.

---