# Official Journal C 324/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.324.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 324 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5525 October 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.324.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 324

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5525 October 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 324/01 | Commission Opinion of 24 October 2012 on interim measures taken by the government of Germany in respect of life jacket lights of model AquaSpec AQ02 manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

2012/C 324/01

Commission Opinion of 24 October 2012 on interim measures taken by the government of Germany in respect of life jacket lights of model AquaSpec AQ02 manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 324/02 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 324/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 5 |
| 2012/C 324/04 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 5 |
| 2012/C 324/05 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 6 |
| 2012/C 324/06 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 324/02

Euro exchange rates

4

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 324/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

5

2012/C 324/04

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

5

2012/C 324/05

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

6

2012/C 324/06

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

6

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 324/07 | Call for proposals — EACEA/34/12 — MEDIA 2007 — Development, distribution, promotion and training — i2i Audiovisual | 7 |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2012/C 324/08 | Notice of open competition | 10 |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2012/C 324/09 | Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-4/12) | 11 |
| 2012/C 324/10 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson (Case E-3/12) | 12 |
| 2012/C 324/11 | Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-5/12) | 13 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 324/12 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6642 — Eaton Corporation/Cooper Industries) (
  1
  ) | 14 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2012/C 324/07

Call for proposals — EACEA/34/12 — MEDIA 2007 — Development, distribution, promotion and training — i2i Audiovisual

7

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2012/C 324/08

Notice of open competition

10

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2012/C 324/09

Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-4/12)

11

2012/C 324/10

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson (Case E-3/12)

12

2012/C 324/11

Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-5/12)

13

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 324/12

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6642 — Eaton Corporation/Cooper Industries) (
  1
  )

1

14

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 24 October 2012

on interim measures taken by the government of Germany in respect of life jacket lights of model AquaSpec AQ02 manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 324/01

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on Marine Equipment (1), and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Annex A.1 to the above mentioned directive, the applicable performance and construction requirements for life jacket lights are laid down in Resolution MSC.48(66) (LSA Code) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the applicable testing standards for the said equipment are laid down in Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Annex A.1 to the above mentioned directive, the applicable performance and construction requirements for life jacket lights are laid down in Resolution MSC.48(66) (LSA Code) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the applicable testing standards for the said equipment are laid down in Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO.

| (2) | By letter of 25 March 2011 the German Authorities (the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, hereinafter ‘BSH’) informed the Commission of interim measures taken by this Authority in respect of life jacket lights of model AquaSpec AQ02 (hereinafter, ‘the life jacket lights’) manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom (hereinafter, ‘the manufacturer’), whereby the life jacket lights belonging to the batches No D024648 (500 pieces) and No D020010 (350 pieces) were recalled from the German market on grounds of failure to comply with Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter of 25 March 2011 the German Authorities (the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, hereinafter ‘BSH’) informed the Commission of interim measures taken by this Authority in respect of life jacket lights of model AquaSpec AQ02 (hereinafter, ‘the life jacket lights’) manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom (hereinafter, ‘the manufacturer’), whereby the life jacket lights belonging to the batches No D024648 (500 pieces) and No D020010 (350 pieces) were recalled from the German market on grounds of failure to comply with Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC.

| (3) | The letter was accompanied by a detailed market surveillance report dated 2 March 2011 and a copy of each of the following documents: (a) the EC Type Examination Certificate (module B) for the life jacket light model AQ02, No BSI/A.1/1.2c/546541, issued on 3 February 2009 by the notified body BSI Product Services, and valid until 2 February 2014; (b) the Quality Assurance Certificate (Module D) for the life jacket light model AQ02, No BSI/MED/PC/546610, issued on 15 June 2009 by the notified body BSI Product Services, and valid until 14 June 2012, and (c) a declaration of Conformity of the life jacket lights model AQ02, batch No D024648, issued on 9 July 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The letter was accompanied by a detailed market surveillance report dated 2 March 2011 and a copy of each of the following documents: (a) the EC Type Examination Certificate (module B) for the life jacket light model AQ02, No BSI/A.1/1.2c/546541, issued on 3 February 2009 by the notified body BSI Product Services, and valid until 2 February 2014; (b) the Quality Assurance Certificate (Module D) for the life jacket light model AQ02, No BSI/MED/PC/546610, issued on 15 June 2009 by the notified body BSI Product Services, and valid until 14 June 2012, and (c) a declaration of Conformity of the life jacket lights model AQ02, batch No D024648, issued on 9 July 2009.

| (4) | The interim measures followed after BSH found that the life jacket lights of the batches No D024648 and No D020010 did not meet the above mentioned applicable requirements during tests which were carried out by BSH within the framework of a market surveillance program. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The interim measures followed after BSH found that the life jacket lights of the batches No D024648 and No D020010 did not meet the above mentioned applicable requirements during tests which were carried out by BSH within the framework of a market surveillance program.

| (5) | More precisely BSH reported that two specimens from batch No D024648 had initially been tested to verify compliance with the requirement in Resolution MSC.48(66) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), section 2.2.3.1.1, whereby each life jacket light shall have a luminous intensity of not less than 0,75 candela (cd) in all directions of the upper hemisphere. The tests showed that, when measured at ambient temperature, the light output of both specimens did not reach the required intensity in the entire range. After these tests further tests had been carried out on four specimens taken from batch No D020010. The results of these tests showed that the light output of none of the four specimens reached the above mentioned requirement in any direction when measured at ambient temperature in the case of two specimens and at – 1 °C in the case of the remaining two specimens. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

More precisely BSH reported that two specimens from batch No D024648 had initially been tested to verify compliance with the requirement in Resolution MSC.48(66) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), section 2.2.3.1.1, whereby each life jacket light shall have a luminous intensity of not less than 0,75 candela (cd) in all directions of the upper hemisphere. The tests showed that, when measured at ambient temperature, the light output of both specimens did not reach the required intensity in the entire range. After these tests further tests had been carried out on four specimens taken from batch No D020010. The results of these tests showed that the light output of none of the four specimens reached the above mentioned requirement in any direction when measured at ambient temperature in the case of two specimens and at – 1 °C in the case of the remaining two specimens.

| (6) | Upon receipt of the letter from BSH the Commission entered into consultations with the manufacturer, the government of the United Kingdom as the notifying Member State and the above mentioned notified body having issued both the type-examination and the production certificates on the latter's behalf (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘the parties’). The Commission asked a number of specific questions from each party and invited them to submit any other observations they might deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Upon receipt of the letter from BSH the Commission entered into consultations with the manufacturer, the government of the United Kingdom as the notifying Member State and the above mentioned notified body having issued both the type-examination and the production certificates on the latter's behalf (hereinafter referred to collectively as ‘the parties’). The Commission asked a number of specific questions from each party and invited them to submit any other observations they might deem appropriate.

| (7) | In response to the Commission's consultation the manufacturer submitted that they had been unable to agree with or accept the test results from BSH for the following reasons: (a) the test procedures performed by BSH had not been conducted in accordance with Circular MSC.980 of the IMO; (b) no assurance could have been given that the samples tested had not already been activated prior to being received by BSH; (c) they had been denied access to the test samples for analysis despite a formal request; and (d) light output tests performed on these batches under their approved and audited Module D procedures all passed at the time of manufacture. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In response to the Commission's consultation the manufacturer submitted that they had been unable to agree with or accept the test results from BSH for the following reasons: (a) the test procedures performed by BSH had not been conducted in accordance with Circular MSC.980 of the IMO; (b) no assurance could have been given that the samples tested had not already been activated prior to being received by BSH; (c) they had been denied access to the test samples for analysis despite a formal request; and (d) light output tests performed on these batches under their approved and audited Module D procedures all passed at the time of manufacture.

| (8) | Further to this the manufacturer submitted: (a) that they had taken the decision to voluntarily suspend all sales and marketing of the life jacket lights in Germany and also to instigate a recall of all products from batches No D024648 and No D020010 within the territory, pending completion of further tests carried out by AquaSpec Ltd on archived samples from those batches; (b) copies of the test reports of the said tests (produced by Kendy Electronics), which showed that the lights fulfilled the requirements; (c) that they had challenged the results of the tests that had been performed by BSH; and (d) that the production of the life jacket lights had ceased in 2011, since they had been replaced by lights using LED lights. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Further to this the manufacturer submitted: (a) that they had taken the decision to voluntarily suspend all sales and marketing of the life jacket lights in Germany and also to instigate a recall of all products from batches No D024648 and No D020010 within the territory, pending completion of further tests carried out by AquaSpec Ltd on archived samples from those batches; (b) copies of the test reports of the said tests (produced by Kendy Electronics), which showed that the lights fulfilled the requirements; (c) that they had challenged the results of the tests that had been performed by BSH; and (d) that the production of the life jacket lights had ceased in 2011, since they had been replaced by lights using LED lights.

| (9) | The Commission did not receive any reaction from BSI Product Services, which the Commission had asked them to provide before June 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Commission did not receive any reaction from BSI Product Services, which the Commission had asked them to provide before June 2011.

| (10) | The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), for the government of the United Kingdom, replied that: (a) the notified body BSI Product Services had informed MCA that AquaSpec Ltd was in the process of checking the batches that had been recalled; (b) AquaSpec Ltd had disputed the results of the tests performed by BSH for the reasons as stated in recital 7; (c) AquaSpec Ltd had felt that they had no choice but to voluntarily recall the product from the German market; (d) if the lights which failed had been distributed to European countries other than Germany, MCA would agree to the withdrawal of the batches concerned from the entire European market; and (e) it would not be possible to establish if the same problem would occur to lights belonging to other batches without further investigation. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), for the government of the United Kingdom, replied that: (a) the notified body BSI Product Services had informed MCA that AquaSpec Ltd was in the process of checking the batches that had been recalled; (b) AquaSpec Ltd had disputed the results of the tests performed by BSH for the reasons as stated in recital 7; (c) AquaSpec Ltd had felt that they had no choice but to voluntarily recall the product from the German market; (d) if the lights which failed had been distributed to European countries other than Germany, MCA would agree to the withdrawal of the batches concerned from the entire European market; and (e) it would not be possible to establish if the same problem would occur to lights belonging to other batches without further investigation.

| (11) | The Commission asked BSH for their views on the observations received. In their answer, to which a memo explaining how the luminous intensity test had been carried out was attached, BSH stated that: (a) favourable conditions for the manufacturer had been used during the tests; (b) it had not been indicated whether Kendy Electronics was an accredited or recognized laboratory and it could not be verified if the prescribed 20-day lasting temperature cycling test required by Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO had been performed; (c) the life jacket lights that had been tested by BSH had been delivered to them in the original packaging and therefore it would be highly unlikely that they would have been activated prior to receipt by BSH; (d) from their point of view it was not correct that AquaSpec Ltd had been denied access to the tested samples, however for reasons of preservation of evidence the wish from AquaSpec Ltd to be returned one of the tested specimens could not be satisfied. However, BSH had stated that they had been willing to meet the request from AquaSpec Ltd for a visit to the laboratory and a meeting; and (e) the results of the tests at the time of manufacture that Aquaspec Ltd had submitted to BSH had shown that these tests had been performed without the 20-day lasting temperature cycling test. BSH concluded that the observations submitted by the manufacturer did not warrant changes to the initial assessment and that the reasons for the recall of the product remained valid. No evidence has been provided to the Commission on any further discussion between the manufacturer and BSH with regard to the former's access to the tested specimens. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Commission asked BSH for their views on the observations received. In their answer, to which a memo explaining how the luminous intensity test had been carried out was attached, BSH stated that: (a) favourable conditions for the manufacturer had been used during the tests; (b) it had not been indicated whether Kendy Electronics was an accredited or recognized laboratory and it could not be verified if the prescribed 20-day lasting temperature cycling test required by Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO had been performed; (c) the life jacket lights that had been tested by BSH had been delivered to them in the original packaging and therefore it would be highly unlikely that they would have been activated prior to receipt by BSH; (d) from their point of view it was not correct that AquaSpec Ltd had been denied access to the tested samples, however for reasons of preservation of evidence the wish from AquaSpec Ltd to be returned one of the tested specimens could not be satisfied. However, BSH had stated that they had been willing to meet the request from AquaSpec Ltd for a visit to the laboratory and a meeting; and (e) the results of the tests at the time of manufacture that Aquaspec Ltd had submitted to BSH had shown that these tests had been performed without the 20-day lasting temperature cycling test. BSH concluded that the observations submitted by the manufacturer did not warrant changes to the initial assessment and that the reasons for the recall of the product remained valid. No evidence has been provided to the Commission on any further discussion between the manufacturer and BSH with regard to the former's access to the tested specimens.

| (12) | BSH acted within the framework of a market surveillance program on life jacket lights, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

BSH acted within the framework of a market surveillance program on life jacket lights, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 96/98/EC.

| (13) | The manufacturer was informed of the results of the above mentioned tests and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations and defend itself before the said Authority adopted any measures in respect of the product in question. Similarly, the notified body was informed and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The manufacturer was informed of the results of the above mentioned tests and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations and defend itself before the said Authority adopted any measures in respect of the product in question. Similarly, the notified body was informed and was given by BSH the possibility to present its observations.

| (14) | The Commission notes that, in its answer, the manufacturer has stated that BSH had not performed the tests in accordance with Circular MSC.980. However, since this Circular does not form part of the testing standards as referred to in recital (1), this test cannot be considered relevant for the case. Furthermore this Circular only contains a format for the testing reports. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Commission notes that, in its answer, the manufacturer has stated that BSH had not performed the tests in accordance with Circular MSC.980. However, since this Circular does not form part of the testing standards as referred to in recital (1), this test cannot be considered relevant for the case. Furthermore this Circular only contains a format for the testing reports.

| (15) | The Commission also notes that, according to the information provided by BSH, the tested specimens had been delivered to them in the original packaging. Therefore it is reasonable to expect these specimens to have been exactly in the same specific condition as would have been available to ship owners for placing on board their ships. No objective elements have been provided to support the manufacturer's statement that, in such circumstances, these specimens could have been activated prior to the receipt by BSH. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Commission also notes that, according to the information provided by BSH, the tested specimens had been delivered to them in the original packaging. Therefore it is reasonable to expect these specimens to have been exactly in the same specific condition as would have been available to ship owners for placing on board their ships. No objective elements have been provided to support the manufacturer's statement that, in such circumstances, these specimens could have been activated prior to the receipt by BSH.

| (16) | The information available to the Commission shows that reasonable diligence was exercised by BSH to facilitate the manufacturer's access to the tested specimens. BSH is accredited in accordance with EN 45011, which contains general requirements for bodies operating product certification systems, including requirements for the quality system and also to EN 17025. This latter standard specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations, including sampling. Therefore, in the absence of any objective evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that BSH carried out all relevant tests appropriately and in accordance with the applicable standards. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The information available to the Commission shows that reasonable diligence was exercised by BSH to facilitate the manufacturer's access to the tested specimens. BSH is accredited in accordance with EN 45011, which contains general requirements for bodies operating product certification systems, including requirements for the quality system and also to EN 17025. This latter standard specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests and/or calibrations, including sampling. Therefore, in the absence of any objective evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that BSH carried out all relevant tests appropriately and in accordance with the applicable standards.

| (17) | Conversely, no proof has been provided, as has been highlighted by BSH, that Kendy Electronics is a duly accredited laboratory and therefore it is not possible for the Commission to accept the test reports issued by this laboratory as an admissible proof in this case. The manufacturer's argument that the specimens tested by this laboratory fulfilled the applicable requirements cannot therefore be retained. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Conversely, no proof has been provided, as has been highlighted by BSH, that Kendy Electronics is a duly accredited laboratory and therefore it is not possible for the Commission to accept the test reports issued by this laboratory as an admissible proof in this case. The manufacturer's argument that the specimens tested by this laboratory fulfilled the applicable requirements cannot therefore be retained.

| (18) | BSH has contended that the tests carried out at the time of manufacture had been performed without the 20-day lasting temperature cycling test, in accordance with Resolution MSC.81(70). However, the documentation submitted by BSH has not allowed the Commission to verify such statement which cannot, therefore, be retained. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

BSH has contended that the tests carried out at the time of manufacture had been performed without the 20-day lasting temperature cycling test, in accordance with Resolution MSC.81(70). However, the documentation submitted by BSH has not allowed the Commission to verify such statement which cannot, therefore, be retained.

| (19) | Based on the above considerations and the evidence submitted to the Commission, in particular the above mentioned results of the tests carried out on six specimens taken at random from two different batches of lifejacket lights produced by AquaSpec Ltd, namely batches No D024648 and No D020010, it is reasonable to conclude that at least these two production batches do not conform to the applicable requirements for this type of equipment. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Based on the above considerations and the evidence submitted to the Commission, in particular the above mentioned results of the tests carried out on six specimens taken at random from two different batches of lifejacket lights produced by AquaSpec Ltd, namely batches No D024648 and No D020010, it is reasonable to conclude that at least these two production batches do not conform to the applicable requirements for this type of equipment.

| (20) | Further to this it cannot be established from the evidence submitted whether the cause of the non-conformity of the life jacket lights lies in the production phase, in the type approval phase or in a combination of both. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Further to this it cannot be established from the evidence submitted whether the cause of the non-conformity of the life jacket lights lies in the production phase, in the type approval phase or in a combination of both.

| (21) | Life jacket lights are important safety devices, which are used in emergency situations. The luminous intensity of those lights may be of crucial importance. This is especially true in cases where people in distress have to be located in the dusk or dark. A too low luminous intensity may hamper such location. For these reasons minimum requirements have been set and people in distress, rescuers and seafarers should be able to trust that those requirements are met. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Life jacket lights are important safety devices, which are used in emergency situations. The luminous intensity of those lights may be of crucial importance. This is especially true in cases where people in distress have to be located in the dusk or dark. A too low luminous intensity may hamper such location. For these reasons minimum requirements have been set and people in distress, rescuers and seafarers should be able to trust that those requirements are met.

| (22) | The Commission notes that the recall of the product only concerned the German market. However, it is unknown to what ships under which flags the products may have been further disseminated. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The Commission notes that the recall of the product only concerned the German market. However, it is unknown to what ships under which flags the products may have been further disseminated.

| (23) | The duration of a recall in this particular case does not have to be limited until the moment measures have been taken such that the lights do comply with the applicable requirements and may be placed on the market again, since the model Aquaspec AQ02 has already been replaced by a another model, |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The duration of a recall in this particular case does not have to be limited until the moment measures have been taken such that the lights do comply with the applicable requirements and may be placed on the market again, since the model Aquaspec AQ02 has already been replaced by a another model,

HAS ADOPTED THIS OPINION:

| 1. | The interim measures notified by the German government to the Commission by letter of 25 March 2011 in respect of life jacket lights of model AquaSpec AQ02, batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom are adequate and proportionate for the protection of maritime safety and are therefore justified. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The interim measures notified by the German government to the Commission by letter of 25 March 2011 in respect of life jacket lights of model AquaSpec AQ02, batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom are adequate and proportionate for the protection of maritime safety and are therefore justified.

| 2. | The Commission recommends that the Member States ensure that life jacket lights of the model AquaSpec AQ02 from batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom, are removed from their markets. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission recommends that the Member States ensure that life jacket lights of the model AquaSpec AQ02 from batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom, are removed from their markets.

| 3. | The Commission recommends that the Member States take all appropriate action in order to remove the life jacket lights of the model AquaSpec AQ02 from batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom, from the ships flying their flag and have them replaced by other life jacket lights fulfilling the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission recommends that the Member States take all appropriate action in order to remove the life jacket lights of the model AquaSpec AQ02 from batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom, from the ships flying their flag and have them replaced by other life jacket lights fulfilling the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC.

| 4. | The Commission recommends that the Member States and Notified Body BSI Product Services take the necessary action to verify that life jacket lights model AquaSpec AQ02, other than those belonging to batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom, comply with the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission recommends that the Member States and Notified Body BSI Product Services take the necessary action to verify that life jacket lights model AquaSpec AQ02, other than those belonging to batches No D024648 and No D020010, manufactured by AquaSpec Ltd in the United Kingdom, comply with the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 96/98/EC.

| 5. | The Commission recommends that the government of the United Kingdom and the notified body BSI Product Services take the necessary action to verify that both the tests conducive to the delivery of a type approval certificate and the tests by which it has been established that the product conforms to type have been performed in accordance with Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO and, in the negative, take the appropriate actions. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Commission recommends that the government of the United Kingdom and the notified body BSI Product Services take the necessary action to verify that both the tests conducive to the delivery of a type approval certificate and the tests by which it has been established that the product conforms to type have been performed in accordance with Resolution MSC.81(70) of the IMO and, in the negative, take the appropriate actions.

| 6. | The Member States should as soon as possible inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures taken pursuant to this opinion. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Member States should as soon as possible inform the Commission and the other Member States of any measures taken pursuant to this opinion.

Done at Brussels, 24 October 2012.

For the Commission

Siim KALLAS

Vice-President

---

(1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 25.

1

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 October 2012

2012/C 324/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2942 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 103,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4592 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80830 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6558 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2100 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4350 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,973 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,89 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1357 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5765 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3365 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2526 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2807 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0304 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5887 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5832 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 428,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3602 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0858 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5640 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 437,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9619 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,613 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,6250 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,758 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6213 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7825 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,6690 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2942

JPY

Japanese yen

103,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4592

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80830

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6558

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2100

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4350

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,973

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,89

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1357

RON

Romanian leu

4,5765

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3365

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2526

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2807

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0304

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5887

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5832

KRW

South Korean won

1 428,48

ZAR

South African rand

11,3602

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0858

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5640

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 437,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9619

PHP

Philippine peso

53,613

RUB

Russian rouble

40,6250

THB

Thai baht

39,758

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6213

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7825

INR

Indian rupee

69,6690

---

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

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 324/03

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 | 1.10.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 1.10.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock or group of stocks | SAN/2A3A4. |
| Species | Sandeel and associated by-catches (Ammodytes spp.) |
| Zone | EU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV excluding waters within six miles of UK baselines at Shetland, Fair Isle and Foula |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS59TQ44 |

Date and time of closure

1.10.2012

Duration

1.10.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Germany

Stock or group of stocks

SAN/2A3A4.

Species

Sandeel and associated by-catches (Ammodytes spp.)

Zone

EU waters of IIa, IIIa and IV excluding waters within six miles of UK baselines at Shetland, Fair Isle and Foula

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS59TQ44

---

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

---

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 324/04

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 | 26.9.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 26.9.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock or group of stocks | COD/N01514 |
| Species | Cod (Gadus morhua) |
| Zone | Greenland waters of NAFO 0 and 1; Greenland waters of V and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS58TQ44 |

Date and time of closure

26.9.2012

Duration

26.9.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Germany

Stock or group of stocks

COD/N01514

Species

Cod (Gadus morhua)

Zone

Greenland waters of NAFO 0 and 1; Greenland waters of V and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS58TQ44

---

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

---

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 324/05

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 | 3.10.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 3.10.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock or group of stocks | MAC/8C3411 |
| Species | Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) |
| Zone | VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS60TQ44 |

Date and time of closure

3.10.2012

Duration

3.10.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Germany

Stock or group of stocks

MAC/8C3411

Species

Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

Zone

VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS60TQ44

---

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

---

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 324/06

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 | 5.10.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 5.10.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or group of stocks | JAX/2A-14 |
| Species | Horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.) |
| Zone | EU waters of IIa, IVa; VI, VIIa-c, VIIe-k, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS61TQ44 |

Date and time of closure

5.10.2012

Duration

5.10.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Spain

Stock or group of stocks

JAX/2A-14

Species

Horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.)

Zone

EU waters of IIa, IVa; VI, VIIa-c, VIIe-k, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS61TQ44

---

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

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/7

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EACEA/34/12

MEDIA 2007 — Development, distribution, promotion and training

i2i Audiovisual

2012/C 324/07

1.   Objectives and description

This notice of a call for proposals is based on Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007).

The measures covered by the Decision include the development of production projects.

The objective of this support is to facilitate independent European production companies’ access to funding from credit and financial institutions, by co-financing part of the costs of:

| — | insurance for audiovisual productions: Module 1 — Support the ‘Insurance’ item in a production budget; |
| --- | --- |

—

insurance for audiovisual productions: Module 1 — Support the ‘Insurance’ item in a production budget;

| — | completion guarantee for the production of an audiovisual work: Module 2 — Support for the item ‘Completion Guarantee’ in a production budget; |
| --- | --- |

—

completion guarantee for the production of an audiovisual work: Module 2 — Support for the item ‘Completion Guarantee’ in a production budget;

| — | credit financing for the production of a work: Module 3 — Support for the item ‘Financial Costs’ in a production budget. |
| --- | --- |

—

credit financing for the production of a work: Module 3 — Support for the item ‘Financial Costs’ in a production budget.

2.   Eligible candidates

This call for proposals is aimed at European companies whose activities contribute to the achievement of the above objectives and in particular independent audiovisual production companies.

Applicants must be registered in one of the following countries:

| — | the 27 countries of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 27 countries of the European Union,

| — | countries of the European Economic Area, |
| --- | --- |

—

countries of the European Economic Area,

| — | Switzerland, |
| --- | --- |

—

Switzerland,

| — | Croatia, |
| --- | --- |

—

Croatia,

| — | Bosnia and Herzegovina (under the condition of the finalisation of the negotiation process and the formalisation of the participation of this country to the MEDIA programme). |
| --- | --- |

—

Bosnia and Herzegovina (under the condition of the finalisation of the negotiation process and the formalisation of the participation of this country to the MEDIA programme).

3.   Eligible actions

The audiovisual work submitted:

| — | must be a drama, animation, creative documentary or an interactive work majority produced by companies registered in one of the countries participating in the MEDIA programme, |
| --- | --- |

—

must be a drama, animation, creative documentary or an interactive work majority produced by companies registered in one of the countries participating in the MEDIA programme,

| — | must be produced with the significant participation of professionals who are nationals/residents of countries participating in the MEDIA programme. |
| --- | --- |

—

must be produced with the significant participation of professionals who are nationals/residents of countries participating in the MEDIA programme.

The maximum duration of the projects is 30 months.

This call for proposals concerns projects that start between 1 July 2012 and 7 June 2013.

4.   Award criteria

Eligible applications will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

| 1. | Projects benefiting from MEDIA Development Single Project for big countries and/or Slate Funding for countries with low audiovisual capacity: 25 points. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Projects benefiting from MEDIA Development Single Project for big countries and/or Slate Funding for countries with low audiovisual capacity: 25 points.

| 2. | Projects with a credit agreement: maximum 25 points.






  2.1. | Credit agreement: 20 points. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Projects with a credit agreement: maximum 25 points.

2.1.

Credit agreement: 20 points.

| 2.2. | Issued by an EU credit and/or financial institution based in a different country other than that of the applicant production company: 5 points. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Issued by an EU credit and/or financial institution based in a different country other than that of the applicant production company: 5 points.

| 3. | Projects from countries with low audiovisual capacity: 25 points. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Projects from countries with low audiovisual capacity: 25 points.

| 4. | Projects from the Member States which entered the EU in 2004 or later (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia), Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia: 15 points. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Projects from the Member States which entered the EU in 2004 or later (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia), Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia: 15 points.

| 5. | Projects with a European dimension: co produced by more than one country participating in the MEDIA programme: maximum 10 points.






  5.1. | Co-production agreement: 5 points. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Projects with a European dimension: co produced by more than one country participating in the MEDIA programme: maximum 10 points.

5.1.

Co-production agreement: 5 points.

| 5.2. | Co-producer(s) from Member States entered the EU in 2004 or later, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia: 2 points per co-producer. |
| --- | --- |

5.2.

Co-producer(s) from Member States entered the EU in 2004 or later, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia: 2 points per co-producer.

| 5.3. | Co-producer(s) from high audiovisual capacity countries/low audiovisual capacity countries: 1 point per co-producer. |
| --- | --- |

5.3.

Co-producer(s) from high audiovisual capacity countries/low audiovisual capacity countries: 1 point per co-producer.

| 5.4. | Co-producer(s) from non-participating countries in the MEDIA programme: 0,5 points per co-producer. |
| --- | --- |

5.4.

Co-producer(s) from non-participating countries in the MEDIA programme: 0,5 points per co-producer.

Within the limits of the budget available, projects with the maximum points on the basis of the above table will be awarded a grant.

In the event that at the conclusion of the above process, more than one project has the same number of points the following criteria will be examined for those projects only:

International distribution potential: maximum 10 points.

| — | Worldwide geographical distribution covered by agreement(s): maximum 10 points. |
| --- | --- |

—

Worldwide geographical distribution covered by agreement(s): maximum 10 points.

| — | Non-national geographical distribution covered by agreement(s): 5 points. |
| --- | --- |

—

Non-national geographical distribution covered by agreement(s): 5 points.

Only projects with worldwide distribution agreement will receive the maximum 10 points.

5.   Budget and duration of the projects

The total budget available is EUR 1,5 million. The financial contribution may not exceed 50-60 % of the eligible costs. The amount of the support is between EUR 5 000 and EUR 50 000. The maximum amount of support is limited to EUR 50 000 per project.

6.   Deadline

Applications for this call for proposals must be submitted at the latest by:

| — | 7 January 2013, for projects with an earliest start date 1 July 2012, |
| --- | --- |

—

7 January 2013, for projects with an earliest start date 1 July 2012,

| — | 7 June 2013, for projects with an earliest start date 1 December 2012. |
| --- | --- |

—

7 June 2013, for projects with an earliest start date 1 December 2012.

Applications must be sent to:

| Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency |
| --- |
| Call for proposals EACEA/34/12 — i2i Audiovisual |
| BOUR 3/30 |
| Avenue du Bourget/Bourgetlaan 1 |
| 1140 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Call for proposals EACEA/34/12 — i2i Audiovisual

BOUR 3/30

Avenue du Bourget/Bourgetlaan 1

1140 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Only applications that are submitted using the correct form, duly completed and dated, and signed by the person authorised to enter into legally binding commitments on behalf of the applicant organisation, will be accepted.

Applications sent by fax or e-mail will not be accepted.

7.   Further information

The guidelines and application forms of this call for proposals may be found on the internet:

http://ec.europa.eu/media

Applications must respect the guidelines for this call for proposals and be submitted using the relevant application forms.

---

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/10

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2012/C 324/08

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising an open competition:

EPSO/AST/123/12 — Assistants with Croatian citizenship (AST 3) in the following fields:

| 1. | Legal matters |
| --- | --- |

1.

Legal matters

| 2. | Communication |
| --- | --- |

2.

Communication

| 3. | Project/Programmes/Contracts management |
| --- | --- |

3.

Project/Programmes/Contracts management

The competition notice is published in English, French and German only, in Official Journal C 324 A of 25 October 2012.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/11

---

Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-4/12)

2012/C 324/09

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | Annul the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the contested decision; and

| 2. | Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is an operator in the tour bus market, active in Norway and several EU Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is an operator in the tour bus market, active in Norway and several EU Member States.

| — | The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 70506. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 70506.

| — | The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






  — | has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to grant access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 70506, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

—

has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to grant access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 70506,

| — | has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual questions ESA asked the Norwegian government, the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, |
| --- | --- |

—

has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual questions ESA asked the Norwegian government, the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011,

| — | has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual answers ESA received from the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, and |
| --- | --- |

—

has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual answers ESA received from the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, and

| — | has infringed Article 16 SCA in so far as the contested decision failed to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

has infringed Article 16 SCA in so far as the contested decision failed to state reasons.

---

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/12

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson

(Case E-3/12)

2012/C 324/10

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 21 May 2012 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 May 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson, on the following question:

When national legislation requires, inter alia, actual stay in the State in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits, is it then compatible with Article 71(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to require continued stay in the competent State (the State of last employment) in order to be granted such benefits from this State, also in the case of a wholly unemployed person who, during his/her last employment, has stayed there as a ‘non-genuine’ frontier worker?

Is it relevant to the answer to this question whether:

| 1. | the unemployed person lives in a country near the competent State (the State of last employment), so that it is possible in practice for that person to appear at the employment office in that State even if he/she does not stay there? |
| --- | --- |

1.

the unemployed person lives in a country near the competent State (the State of last employment), so that it is possible in practice for that person to appear at the employment office in that State even if he/she does not stay there?

| 2. | the unemployed person, after having returned to the State of residence, registers as a job seeker with the employment service and also applies for unemployment benefits in that State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

the unemployed person, after having returned to the State of residence, registers as a job seeker with the employment service and also applies for unemployment benefits in that State?

---

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/13

---

Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-5/12)

2012/C 324/11

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | Annul the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the contested decision; and

| 2. | Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is active in the regional express bus market between the Southern and Central region in Norway. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is active in the regional express bus market between the Southern and Central region in Norway.

| — | The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, which denies public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 60510. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, which denies public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 60510.

| — | The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






  — | has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to disclose a complete statement of content of file; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

—

has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to disclose a complete statement of content of file; and

| — | has infringed Article 16 SCA insofar as the contested decision failed to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

has infringed Article 16 SCA insofar as the contested decision failed to state reasons.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6642 — Eaton Corporation/Cooper Industries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 324/12

| 1. | On 17 October 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Eaton Corporation (‘Eaton’, USA) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of Cooper Industries plc (‘Cooper’) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 17 October 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Eaton Corporation (‘Eaton’, USA) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of Cooper Industries plc (‘Cooper’) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Eaton: a diversified industrial company which is active mainly in (i) aerospace: (ii) automotive; (iii) electrical; (iv) hydraulics; and (v) truck, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Eaton: a diversified industrial company which is active mainly in (i) aerospace: (ii) automotive; (iii) electrical; (iv) hydraulics; and (v) truck,

| — | for Cooper: manufacturing of electrical equipment. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Cooper: manufacturing of electrical equipment.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6642 — Eaton Corporation/Cooper Industries, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6642 — Eaton Corporation/Cooper Industries, 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’).

---