# Official Journal C 437/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 437 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5925 November 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 437

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5925 November 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 437/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2016/C 437/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 July 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay TV — Rapporteur: Malta | 2 |
| 2016/C 437/03 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Cross-border access to pay TV content — Paramount commitments (AT.40023) | 3 |
| 2016/C 437/04 | Summary of Commission Decision of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay-TV) (notified under document C(2016) 4740 final) | 5 |
| | European Systemic Risk Board |
| 2016/C 437/05 ESRB/2016/13 | Decision of the European Systemic Risk Board of 12 October 2016 amending Decision ESRB/2011/1 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB/2016/13) | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 437/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2016/C 437/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 July 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay TV — Rapporteur: Malta

2

2016/C 437/03

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Cross-border access to pay TV content — Paramount commitments (AT.40023)

3

2016/C 437/04

Summary of Commission Decision of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay-TV) (notified under document C(2016) 4740 final)

notified under document C(2016) 4740 final

5

European Systemic Risk Board

2016/C 437/05 ESRB/2016/13

Decision of the European Systemic Risk Board of 12 October 2016 amending Decision ESRB/2011/1 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB/2016/13)

8

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 437/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2016/C 437/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 437/08 | Publication of an application for approval of minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 11 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 437/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

2016/C 437/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

10

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2016/C 437/08

Publication of an application for approval of minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

11

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 November 2016

(2016/C 437/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0548 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 119,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4373 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84800 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7658 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0727 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0858 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,034 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,46 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4239 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5100 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,6136 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4274 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4232 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1819 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5096 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5107 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 246,47 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0085 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2988 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5303 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 292,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7043 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,723 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,0798 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,635 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5909 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8850 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,5245 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0548

JPY

Japanese yen

119,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4373

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84800

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7658

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0727

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0858

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,034

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,46

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4239

RON

Romanian leu

4,5100

TRY

Turkish lira

3,6136

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4274

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4232

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1819

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5096

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5107

KRW

South Korean won

1 246,47

ZAR

South African rand

15,0085

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2988

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5303

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 292,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7043

PHP

Philippine peso

52,723

RUB

Russian rouble

68,0798

THB

Thai baht

37,635

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5909

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8850

INR

Indian rupee

72,5245

---

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

---

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 7 July 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay TV

Rapporteur: Malta

(2016/C 437/02)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment in its draft Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 23 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment in its draft Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 23 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

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

2.

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

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Paramount are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its Statement of Objections. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by Paramount are suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to address the concerns expressed by the Commission in its Statement of Objections.

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

4.

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

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

5.

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

---

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

---

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/3

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Cross-border access to pay TV content — Paramount commitments

(AT.40023)

(2016/C 437/03)

| (1) | The present report relates to a draft commitments decision under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) (the ‘Draft Decision’) addressed to Paramount Pictures International Limited (formerly Viacom Global (Nederlands) BV) as well as to Viacom Inc. (together ‘Paramount’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The present report relates to a draft commitments decision under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) (the ‘Draft Decision’) addressed to Paramount Pictures International Limited (formerly Viacom Global (Nederlands) BV) as well as to Viacom Inc. (together ‘Paramount’).

| (2) | On 13 January 2014 and 23 July 2015, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) in respect of suspected infringements of Article 101 TFEU arising from certain clauses included in bilateral agreements concerning the licensing of audiovisual content for pay-TV broadcasting purposes. These proceedings concerned, on one hand, the Sky broadcasting group in particular and, on the other, each of six undertakings (Paramount among them) involved in film production (the ‘Studios’). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 13 January 2014 and 23 July 2015, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) in respect of suspected infringements of Article 101 TFEU arising from certain clauses included in bilateral agreements concerning the licensing of audiovisual content for pay-TV broadcasting purposes. These proceedings concerned, on one hand, the Sky broadcasting group in particular and, on the other, each of six undertakings (Paramount among them) involved in film production (the ‘Studios’).

| (3) | The Commission adopted a Statement of Objections in Case AT.40023 on 23 July 2015 (the ‘SO’). The SO was addressed to the following legal entities (the ‘SO Addressees’), in seven groups (the ‘Parties’): (i) Sky UK and Sky plc (together, ‘Sky’) (ii) Viacom Global (Netherlands) BV and Viacom Inc. (that is, Paramount); (iii) Universal Studios International BV and Comcast Corporation (together, ‘NBCUniversal’); (iv) CPT Holdings, Inc., Colgems Productions Limited and Sony Corporation (together, ‘Sony’); (v) The Walt Disney Company Limited and The Walt Disney Company; (vi) Twentieth Century Fox Telecommunications International Inc. and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (together ‘Fox’); and (vii) Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc. and Time Warner Inc. (together, ‘Warner’). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Commission adopted a Statement of Objections in Case AT.40023 on 23 July 2015 (the ‘SO’). The SO was addressed to the following legal entities (the ‘SO Addressees’), in seven groups (the ‘Parties’): (i) Sky UK and Sky plc (together, ‘Sky’) (ii) Viacom Global (Netherlands) BV and Viacom Inc. (that is, Paramount); (iii) Universal Studios International BV and Comcast Corporation (together, ‘NBCUniversal’); (iv) CPT Holdings, Inc., Colgems Productions Limited and Sony Corporation (together, ‘Sony’); (v) The Walt Disney Company Limited and The Walt Disney Company; (vi) Twentieth Century Fox Telecommunications International Inc. and Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (together ‘Fox’); and (vii) Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc. and Time Warner Inc. (together, ‘Warner’).

| (4) | According to the SO, which was notified to Paramount on 27 July 2015, the clauses that prevent or limit Sky from making its retail pay-TV services available in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and Ireland, on the one hand, and the clauses that require the Studios to prevent or limit broadcasters located within the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and Ireland from making their retail pay-TV services available in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in those territories, on the other hand, have as their object the restriction of competition and the Parties have not demonstrated that these clauses are exempted under Article 101(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

According to the SO, which was notified to Paramount on 27 July 2015, the clauses that prevent or limit Sky from making its retail pay-TV services available in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and Ireland, on the one hand, and the clauses that require the Studios to prevent or limit broadcasters located within the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and Ireland from making their retail pay-TV services available in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in those territories, on the other hand, have as their object the restriction of competition and the Parties have not demonstrated that these clauses are exempted under Article 101(3) TFEU.

| (5) | All the Parties had the opportunity of access to the file by way of a DVD-ROM. Each Party either arranged for its DVD-ROM to be picked up directly from DG Competition's premises on 3 August 2015 or received it by courier on 5 August 2015. Following correspondence with Sony concerning its request for access to the information underlying the preliminary assessment in paragraph 267 of the SO, DG Competition provided each Party with the full text of footnote 132 of the SO. None of the Parties referred the matter to me. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

All the Parties had the opportunity of access to the file by way of a DVD-ROM. Each Party either arranged for its DVD-ROM to be picked up directly from DG Competition's premises on 3 August 2015 or received it by courier on 5 August 2015. Following correspondence with Sony concerning its request for access to the information underlying the preliminary assessment in paragraph 267 of the SO, DG Competition provided each Party with the full text of footnote 132 of the SO. None of the Parties referred the matter to me.

| (6) | On 16 December 2015, following correspondence with Sky UK, Warner and Fox, DG Competition granted each Party access to non-confidential versions of parts of the written responses to the SO of the other Parties. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 16 December 2015, following correspondence with Sky UK, Warner and Fox, DG Competition granted each Party access to non-confidential versions of parts of the written responses to the SO of the other Parties.

| (7) | Upon consideration of requests from Sky UK, Fox, Warner and NBCUniversal in particular, DG Competition granted the Parties access to non-confidential versions of the written observations of interested third persons (4). All Parties were given the possibility to present written comments on those observations. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Upon consideration of requests from Sky UK, Fox, Warner and NBCUniversal in particular, DG Competition granted the Parties access to non-confidential versions of the written observations of interested third persons (4). All Parties were given the possibility to present written comments on those observations.

| (8) | Aside from Sky plc, all the SO Addressees responded in writing to the SO by the deadlines, or if applicable the extended deadlines, set by DG Competition. Sky plc did not respond to the SO. The SO Addressees that responded in writing to the SO requested in their written responses to be heard orally. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Aside from Sky plc, all the SO Addressees responded in writing to the SO by the deadlines, or if applicable the extended deadlines, set by DG Competition. Sky plc did not respond to the SO. The SO Addressees that responded in writing to the SO requested in their written responses to be heard orally.

| (9) | The oral hearing was held over 3 days, from 18 to 20 January 2016. All the SO Addressees, including Paramount, that had responded in writing to the SO participated. 11 interested third persons were invited in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU to participate in the oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The oral hearing was held over 3 days, from 18 to 20 January 2016. All the SO Addressees, including Paramount, that had responded in writing to the SO participated. 11 interested third persons were invited in accordance with Article 6(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU to participate in the oral hearing.

| (10) | On 15 April 2016, Paramount offered proposed commitments in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

On 15 April 2016, Paramount offered proposed commitments in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.

| (11) | On 22 April 2016, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the Commission's concerns and the proposed commitments submitted by Paramount on 15 April 2016. Responses were invited within one month of this publication. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

On 22 April 2016, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, summarising the Commission's concerns and the proposed commitments submitted by Paramount on 15 April 2016. Responses were invited within one month of this publication.

| (12) | A total of 25 substantive responses were received. Certain respondents submitted that the proposed commitments failed to describe in a sufficiently detailed manner the nature of the clauses that Paramount proposes to commit to no longer enter into or be bound by. In particular, some of these respondents claimed that the proposed commitments were not self-reading, but required access to the text of the SO for their interpretation. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

A total of 25 substantive responses were received. Certain respondents submitted that the proposed commitments failed to describe in a sufficiently detailed manner the nature of the clauses that Paramount proposes to commit to no longer enter into or be bound by. In particular, some of these respondents claimed that the proposed commitments were not self-reading, but required access to the text of the SO for their interpretation.

| (13) | On 27 May 2016, DG Competition informed Paramount of the result of the market test of Paramount's proposed commitments conducted pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

On 27 May 2016, DG Competition informed Paramount of the result of the market test of Paramount's proposed commitments conducted pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| (14) | Paramount subsequently submitted modified proposed commitments that no longer cross-refer to the SO. DG Competition sent these to the respondents that had claimed that the initially proposed commitments were insufficiently clear, giving these respondents the opportunity to submit further observations. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Paramount subsequently submitted modified proposed commitments that no longer cross-refer to the SO. DG Competition sent these to the respondents that had claimed that the initially proposed commitments were insufficiently clear, giving these respondents the opportunity to submit further observations.

| (15) | In view of Paramount's modified proposed commitments, the Commission has come to the conclusion that there are no longer grounds for action against Paramount and that the proceedings against it should be brought to an end by way of a decision pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In view of Paramount's modified proposed commitments, the Commission has come to the conclusion that there are no longer grounds for action against Paramount and that the proceedings against it should be brought to an end by way of a decision pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| (16) | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the Draft Decision deals only with objections in respect of which Paramount has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the Draft Decision deals only with objections in respect of which Paramount has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does.

| (17) | Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected.

Brussels, 14 July 2016.

Wouter WILS

---

(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) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

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

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18) (‘Regulation (EC) No 773/2004’).

3

(4)  I have recognised 16 interested third persons in Case AT.40023: ANICA Associazione Nazionale Industrie Cinematografiche Audiovisive Multimediali; Association des Producteurs de Cinéma; BT Group plc; Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs AISBL; Danish Producers' Association; Distribuidora de Televisión Digital, SA; EFADs — European Film Agency Directors Association (aisbl); European Producers Club; Groupe Canal+; Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional; Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television Limited; ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE; Spitzenorganisation der Filmwirtschaft e.V.; The British Film Institute; The Football Association Premier League Limited; and Zentropa.

4

---

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/5

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 26 July 2016

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

(Case AT.40023 — Cross-border access to pay-TV)

(notified under document C(2016) 4740 final)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2016/C 437/04)

On 26 July 2016, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. 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 Paramount Pictures International Limited (formerly Viacom Global (Netherlands) B.V.) and Viacom Inc. (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘Paramount’) under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘Regulation (EC) No 1/2003’) in a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the Treaty’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Decision makes legally binding the commitments offered by Paramount Pictures International Limited (formerly Viacom Global (Netherlands) B.V.) and Viacom Inc. (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘Paramount’) under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (‘Regulation (EC) No 1/2003’) in a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the Treaty’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | This Decision concerns the film licensing agreements Paramount has entered into with Sky UK Limited (formerly British Sky Broadcasting Limited) and Sky Plc. (formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc.) (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘Sky’). |
| --- | --- |

2.

This Decision concerns the film licensing agreements Paramount has entered into with Sky UK Limited (formerly British Sky Broadcasting Limited) and Sky Plc. (formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc.) (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘Sky’).

Procedure

| 3. | On 13 January 2014, the Commission initiated proceedings, amongst others, against Paramount with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation 1/2003. On 23 July 2015, the Commission addressed Paramount a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) which set out the competition concerns in relation to certain clauses contained in certain film licensing agreements Paramount entered into with Sky in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The SO constitutes a preliminary assessment for the purposes of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. On 18-20 January 2016, an Oral Hearing took place, during which Paramount developed its arguments. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On 13 January 2014, the Commission initiated proceedings, amongst others, against Paramount with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation 1/2003. On 23 July 2015, the Commission addressed Paramount a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) which set out the competition concerns in relation to certain clauses contained in certain film licensing agreements Paramount entered into with Sky in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The SO constitutes a preliminary assessment for the purposes of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. On 18-20 January 2016, an Oral Hearing took place, during which Paramount developed its arguments.

| 4. | On 15 April 2016, Paramount offered commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to meet the Commission’s competition concerns (‘Initial Commitments’). On 22 April 2016, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 summarising the case and the Initial Commitments and inviting third parties to submit their observations on the Initial Commitments within one month from the date of publication of the Notice. The Commission received 25 observations from third parties on the Initial Commitments. On 27 May 2016, the Commission informed Paramount of the observations received from the respondents. |
| --- | --- |

4.

On 15 April 2016, Paramount offered commitments pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to meet the Commission’s competition concerns (‘Initial Commitments’). On 22 April 2016, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 summarising the case and the Initial Commitments and inviting third parties to submit their observations on the Initial Commitments within one month from the date of publication of the Notice. The Commission received 25 observations from third parties on the Initial Commitments. On 27 May 2016, the Commission informed Paramount of the observations received from the respondents.

| 5. | On 10 June 2016, Paramount clarified certain aspects of the Initial Commitments (‘the Revised Commitments’). On 7 July 2016, Paramount clarified further certain aspects of the Revised Commitments and submitted a new version of the commitments (‘the Final Commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

5.

On 10 June 2016, Paramount clarified certain aspects of the Initial Commitments (‘the Revised Commitments’). On 7 July 2016, Paramount clarified further certain aspects of the Revised Commitments and submitted a new version of the commitments (‘the Final Commitments’).

| 6. | On 7 July 2016, the Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions. On 14 July 2016, the Hearing Officer issued his final report. |
| --- | --- |

6.

On 7 July 2016, the Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions. On 14 July 2016, the Hearing Officer issued his final report.

The Commission’s competition concerns

| 7. | Paramount has entered into licensing agreements with Sky whereby Paramount grants Sky exclusive pay-TV and subscription video-on-demand (‘SVOD’) rights with regard to certain films in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Paramount has entered into licensing agreements with Sky whereby Paramount grants Sky exclusive pay-TV and subscription video-on-demand (‘SVOD’) rights with regard to certain films in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

| 8. | In 2009, Paramount and Sky entered into a licensing agreement (‘the 2009 Agreement’). In addition to granting an exclusive right to exhibit the licensed content to subscribers in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the 2009 Agreement contained the following clauses with regard to transmission via satellite and the internet: |
| --- | --- |

8.

In 2009, Paramount and Sky entered into a licensing agreement (‘the 2009 Agreement’). In addition to granting an exclusive right to exhibit the licensed content to subscribers in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the 2009 Agreement contained the following clauses with regard to transmission via satellite and the internet:

| 9. | First, with regard to satellite transmission, the 2009 Agreement provided that:






  (a) | Sky was not to knowingly authorise reception of broadcast by a viewer outside the United Kingdom and Ireland; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

First, with regard to satellite transmission, the 2009 Agreement provided that:

(a)

Sky was not to knowingly authorise reception of broadcast by a viewer outside the United Kingdom and Ireland; and

| (b) | Paramount was not to authorise the availability of any third party descrambling device that would allow viewing of the content in the United Kingdom and Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Paramount was not to authorise the availability of any third party descrambling device that would allow viewing of the content in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

| 10. | Second, with regard to internet transmission, the 2009 Agreement provided that Sky was required to prevent the unauthorised internet transmission outside the United Kingdom and Ireland by means of geo-filtering and/or equivalent technology. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Second, with regard to internet transmission, the 2009 Agreement provided that Sky was required to prevent the unauthorised internet transmission outside the United Kingdom and Ireland by means of geo-filtering and/or equivalent technology.

| 11. | In 2014, Paramount and Sky entered into a licensing agreement that amended and restated the 2009 Agreement (‘the 2014 Agreement’). |
| --- | --- |

11.

In 2014, Paramount and Sky entered into a licensing agreement that amended and restated the 2009 Agreement (‘the 2014 Agreement’).

| 12. | In addition to granting an exclusive right to exhibit the licensed content to subscribers in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the 2014 Agreement contained clauses that, with regard to transmission via the internet:






  (a) | require Sky to prevent the unauthorised internet transmission outside the United Kingdom and Ireland by means of geo-filtering and/or equivalent technology; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

12.

In addition to granting an exclusive right to exhibit the licensed content to subscribers in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the 2014 Agreement contained clauses that, with regard to transmission via the internet:

(a)

require Sky to prevent the unauthorised internet transmission outside the United Kingdom and Ireland by means of geo-filtering and/or equivalent technology; and

| (b) | require Paramount not to authorise internet transmission without geo-filtering. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

require Paramount not to authorise internet transmission without geo-filtering.

These clauses are hereinafter referred to as ‘the Contested Clauses’.

| 13. | In the SO, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the Contested Clauses:






  (a) | prohibit or limit Sky from providing its retail pay-TV services in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

13.

In the SO, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the Contested Clauses:

(a)

prohibit or limit Sky from providing its retail pay-TV services in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and/or

| (b) | require Paramount to prohibit or limit pay-TV broadcasters located within the EEA, but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, from providing their retail pay-TV services in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

require Paramount to prohibit or limit pay-TV broadcasters located within the EEA, but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, from providing their retail pay-TV services in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

| 14. | The Commission therefore reached the preliminary conclusion that the Contested Clauses are liable to impair competition and have an anticompetitive object because they are designed to prohibit or limit cross-border passive sales of retail pay-TV services and grant absolute territorial exclusivity in relation to Paramount’s content. |
| --- | --- |

14.

The Commission therefore reached the preliminary conclusion that the Contested Clauses are liable to impair competition and have an anticompetitive object because they are designed to prohibit or limit cross-border passive sales of retail pay-TV services and grant absolute territorial exclusivity in relation to Paramount’s content.

| 15. | In the SO, the Commission also reached the preliminary conclusion that there are no circumstances falling within the economic and legal context of the Contested Clauses, including the nature of the services affected and the conditions of the functioning and structure of the markets in question, that would justify the finding that the clauses are not liable to impair competition and therefore do not have an anticompetitive object. |
| --- | --- |

15.

In the SO, the Commission also reached the preliminary conclusion that there are no circumstances falling within the economic and legal context of the Contested Clauses, including the nature of the services affected and the conditions of the functioning and structure of the markets in question, that would justify the finding that the clauses are not liable to impair competition and therefore do not have an anticompetitive object.

| 16. | In the SO, the Commission examined arguments put forward by Paramount claiming, inter alia, that the Contested Clauses: (i) bring about cost and qualitative efficiencies; (ii) ensure that consumers can enjoy a culturally targeted, local language product, with greater choice and variety of content; (iii) maintain the incentives of Paramount, pay-TV broadcasters and distributors to invest in local content; and (iv) do not eliminate a substantial part of competition between pay-TV broadcasters in the EEA. The Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the Contested Clauses do not meet any of the cumulative conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) of the Treaty and Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

16.

In the SO, the Commission examined arguments put forward by Paramount claiming, inter alia, that the Contested Clauses: (i) bring about cost and qualitative efficiencies; (ii) ensure that consumers can enjoy a culturally targeted, local language product, with greater choice and variety of content; (iii) maintain the incentives of Paramount, pay-TV broadcasters and distributors to invest in local content; and (iv) do not eliminate a substantial part of competition between pay-TV broadcasters in the EEA. The Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the Contested Clauses do not meet any of the cumulative conditions for exemption under Article 101(3) of the Treaty and Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement.

Paramount’s commitments

| 17. | The main aspects of the Initial Commitments were as follows. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The main aspects of the Initial Commitments were as follows.

| 18. | First, Paramount would not enter into, renew or extend a pay-TV output licence agreement that, with respect to any territory in the EEA, (re)introduces:






  (a) | contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO preventing or limiting a pay-TV broadcaster from responding to unsolicited requests from consumers residing and located in the EEA but outside of such broadcaster’s licensed territory (‘Broadcaster Obligation’); and |
| --- | --- | --- |

18.

First, Paramount would not enter into, renew or extend a pay-TV output licence agreement that, with respect to any territory in the EEA, (re)introduces:

(a)

contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO preventing or limiting a pay-TV broadcaster from responding to unsolicited requests from consumers residing and located in the EEA but outside of such broadcaster’s licensed territory (‘Broadcaster Obligation’); and

| (b) | contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO requiring Paramount to prohibit or limit pay-TV broadcasters located within the EEA but outside a pay-TV broadcaster’s licensed territory from responding to unsolicited requests from consumers residing and located inside such broadcaster’s licensed territory (‘Paramount Obligation’). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO requiring Paramount to prohibit or limit pay-TV broadcasters located within the EEA but outside a pay-TV broadcaster’s licensed territory from responding to unsolicited requests from consumers residing and located inside such broadcaster’s licensed territory (‘Paramount Obligation’).

| 19. | Second, Paramount would not:






  (a) | seek to enforce or initiate proceedings before a court or tribunal for the violation of a Broadcaster Obligation in an existing pay-TV output licence agreement; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

19.

Second, Paramount would not:

(a)

seek to enforce or initiate proceedings before a court or tribunal for the violation of a Broadcaster Obligation in an existing pay-TV output licence agreement; and

| (b) | directly or indirectly honour or enforce a Paramount Obligation in an existing pay-TV output licence agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

directly or indirectly honour or enforce a Paramount Obligation in an existing pay-TV output licence agreement.

| 20. | The Initial Commitments would cover both linear pay-TV services and, to the extent included in the licence (or separate licence(s)) with a pay-TV broadcaster, subscription video-on-demand services (‘SVOD’). |
| --- | --- |

20.

The Initial Commitments would cover both linear pay-TV services and, to the extent included in the licence (or separate licence(s)) with a pay-TV broadcaster, subscription video-on-demand services (‘SVOD’).

| 21. | The duration of the Initial Commitments would be five years from the date on which Paramount would be notified of a Decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A trustee would be appointed to monitor Paramount’s compliance with the Initial Commitments. |
| --- | --- |

21.

The duration of the Initial Commitments would be five years from the date on which Paramount would be notified of a Decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A trustee would be appointed to monitor Paramount’s compliance with the Initial Commitments.

| 22. | The Revised Commitments were identical to the Initial Commitments, save for the following clarifications in Clause 1 of the Final Commitments: (i) the addition of a definition of ‘Relevant Clauses’; (ii) the replacement in the definition of ‘Broadcaster Obligation’ of the reference to ‘contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO preventing or limiting’ with a reference to ‘the Relevant Clauses or equivalent clauses to the extent that they prevent or limit’; and (iii) the replacement in the definition of ‘Paramount Obligation’ of the reference to ‘contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO requiring’ with a reference to ‘the Relevant Clauses or equivalent clauses to the extent that they require’. With regard to the monitoring trustee, Paramount deleted the wording ‘if this has been appointed’ (Clause 13 of the Final Commitments). |
| --- | --- |

22.

The Revised Commitments were identical to the Initial Commitments, save for the following clarifications in Clause 1 of the Final Commitments: (i) the addition of a definition of ‘Relevant Clauses’; (ii) the replacement in the definition of ‘Broadcaster Obligation’ of the reference to ‘contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO preventing or limiting’ with a reference to ‘the Relevant Clauses or equivalent clauses to the extent that they prevent or limit’; and (iii) the replacement in the definition of ‘Paramount Obligation’ of the reference to ‘contractual obligations of the type identified in the SO requiring’ with a reference to ‘the Relevant Clauses or equivalent clauses to the extent that they require’. With regard to the monitoring trustee, Paramount deleted the wording ‘if this has been appointed’ (Clause 13 of the Final Commitments).

| 23. | The Final Commitments are identical to the Revised Commitments, save for the following clarifications in Clause 1 of the Final Commitments: (i) the addition in the definition of ‘EEA’ of the words ‘and continuing to participate thereafter’; and (ii) the addition in the definition of ‘Relevant Clauses’ of the words ‘(and, if included, other audiovisual content)’. |
| --- | --- |

23.

The Final Commitments are identical to the Revised Commitments, save for the following clarifications in Clause 1 of the Final Commitments: (i) the addition in the definition of ‘EEA’ of the words ‘and continuing to participate thereafter’; and (ii) the addition in the definition of ‘Relevant Clauses’ of the words ‘(and, if included, other audiovisual content)’.

Conclusion

| 24. | The Final Commitments address adequately the concerns expressed in the SO as they will apply to all retail pay-TV services and lead to the removal of all clauses in any new pay-TV output license agreement, extension or renewal between Paramount and pay-TV broadcasters located in the EEA that:






  (i) | contractually prohibit or limit Sky from providing its retail pay-TV services in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

24.

The Final Commitments address adequately the concerns expressed in the SO as they will apply to all retail pay-TV services and lead to the removal of all clauses in any new pay-TV output license agreement, extension or renewal between Paramount and pay-TV broadcasters located in the EEA that:

(i)

contractually prohibit or limit Sky from providing its retail pay-TV services in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and/or

| (ii) | require Paramount to prohibit or limit pay-TV broadcasters located within the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from providing their retail pay-TV services available in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

require Paramount to prohibit or limit pay-TV broadcasters located within the EEA but outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from providing their retail pay-TV services available in response to unsolicited requests from consumers residing or located in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

In addition, Paramount will not seek to enforce, or honour, the above-mentioned clauses in existing pay-TV output agreements in force with pay-TV broadcasters in the EEA.

| 25. | The Decision makes the Final Commitments offered by Paramount legally binding. The non-confidential version of the Decision will be made available on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition. |
| --- | --- |

25.

The Decision makes the Final Commitments offered by Paramount legally binding. The non-confidential version of the Decision will be made available on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition.

| 26. | In the light of the Final Commitments, the Commission considers that there are no longer grounds for action against Paramount, and, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the proceedings against Paramount should therefore be brought to an end. |
| --- | --- |

26.

In the light of the Final Commitments, the Commission considers that there are no longer grounds for action against Paramount, and, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the proceedings against Paramount should therefore be brought to an end.

---

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

---

European Systemic Risk Board

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/8

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD

of 12 October 2016

amending Decision ESRB/2011/1 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Systemic Risk Board

(ESRB/2016/13)

(2016/C 437/05)

THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (1), and in particular Article 6(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 of 17 November 2010 conferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Warnings and recommendations issued by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) are legal instruments that need to be properly notified to their addressees. Article 19(2) of Decision ESRB/2011/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board (3) requires the Chair of the ESRB to sign ESRB warnings and recommendations. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Warnings and recommendations issued by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) are legal instruments that need to be properly notified to their addressees. Article 19(2) of Decision ESRB/2011/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board (3) requires the Chair of the ESRB to sign ESRB warnings and recommendations.

| (2) | Henceforth each ESRB warning and recommendation should be signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat in order to certify its conformity with the General Board’s decision. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Henceforth each ESRB warning and recommendation should be signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat in order to certify its conformity with the General Board’s decision.

| (3) | Therefore, Decision ESRB/2011/1 should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Therefore, Decision ESRB/2011/1 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Sole Article

Amendments

Decision ESRB/2011/1 is amended as follows:

| 1. | in Article 5, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
  ‘4.   The Chair of the ESRB shall submit the draft minutes to the members of the General Board for comments and approval by written procedure at the latest two weeks following the meeting or, if this is not possible, at the subsequent meeting. Once approved, they shall be signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat.’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

in Article 5, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

‘4.   The Chair of the ESRB shall submit the draft minutes to the members of the General Board for comments and approval by written procedure at the latest two weeks following the meeting or, if this is not possible, at the subsequent meeting. Once approved, they shall be signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat.’;

| 2. | in Article 10, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
  ‘3.   The Head of the ESRB Secretariat shall prepare the draft summary proceedings of the Steering Committee meetings and submit them for comments and approval to the members of the Steering Committee by written procedure, as a rule before the following General Board meeting. The summary proceedings shall be signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat.’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

in Article 10, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

‘3.   The Head of the ESRB Secretariat shall prepare the draft summary proceedings of the Steering Committee meetings and submit them for comments and approval to the members of the Steering Committee by written procedure, as a rule before the following General Board meeting. The summary proceedings shall be signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat.’;

| 3. | in Article 19, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
  ‘2.   ESRB warnings and recommendations shall be adopted by the General Board and signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat to certify their conformity with the General Board’s decision.’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

in Article 19, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.   ESRB warnings and recommendations shall be adopted by the General Board and signed by the Head of the ESRB Secretariat to certify their conformity with the General Board’s decision.’.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 12 October 2016.

The Chair of the ESRB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 162.

2

(3)  Decision ESRB/2011/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 20 January 2011 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Systemic Risk Board (OJ C 58, 24.2.2011, p. 4).

3

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/9

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands))

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 437/06)

| 1. | On 18 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking AURELIUS Equity Opportunities SE & Co. KGaA (‘Aurelius’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Office Depot (Netherlands) C.V. (‘Office Depot Europe Business’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 18 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking AURELIUS Equity Opportunities SE & Co. KGaA (‘Aurelius’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Office Depot (Netherlands) C.V. (‘Office Depot Europe Business’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   for Aurelius: a private equity investor and multi-asset administrator, which acquires, restructures and eventually sells companies in special situations,
  —   for Office Depot Europe Business: a provider of products, services, and solutions for the workplace throughout the European Economic Area. Office Depot Europe Business offers technology, office supplies, print and document services, business services, facilities products, furniture, and school supplies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for Aurelius: a private equity investor and multi-asset administrator, which acquires, restructures and eventually sells companies in special situations,

—   for Office Depot Europe Business: a provider of products, services, and solutions for the workplace throughout the European Economic Area. Office Depot Europe Business offers technology, office supplies, print and document services, business services, facilities products, furniture, and school supplies.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands), to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8247 — AURELIUS Equity Opportunities/Office Depot (Netherlands), to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/10

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 437/07)

| 1. | On 14 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Deutsche Post AG, trading as Deutsche Post DHL Group (‘DPDHL’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of UK Mail Group plc and its subsidiaries (‘UK Mail’, United Kingdom) by way of a public bid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 14 November 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Deutsche Post AG, trading as Deutsche Post DHL Group (‘DPDHL’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of UK Mail Group plc and its subsidiaries (‘UK Mail’, United Kingdom) by way of a public bid.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   for DPDHL: DPDHL is a global mail and logistics company headquartered in Germany. The group operates under two brands (Deutsche Post and DHL) and delivers services to customers in over 220 countries and territories worldwide. The postal division of DPDHL, Deutsche Post, provides the national postal service in Germany. DHL provides a comprehensive range of international express, freight transportation, e-commerce and supply chain management services.
  —   for UK Mail: United Kingdom-based courier company with a nationwide network of more than 50 sites and 2 400 vehicles. It offers parcel and mail delivery solutions both locally and worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for DPDHL: DPDHL is a global mail and logistics company headquartered in Germany. The group operates under two brands (Deutsche Post and DHL) and delivers services to customers in over 220 countries and territories worldwide. The postal division of DPDHL, Deutsche Post, provides the national postal service in Germany. DHL provides a comprehensive range of international express, freight transportation, e-commerce and supply chain management services.

—   for UK Mail: United Kingdom-based courier company with a nationwide network of more than 50 sites and 2 400 vehicles. It offers parcel and mail delivery solutions both locally and worldwide.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8280 — Deutsche Post DHL/UK Mail, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 25.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/11

---

Publication of an application for approval of minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2016/C 437/08)

The European Commission has approved this minor amendment in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 (1).

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A MINOR AMENDMENT

Application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
   (2)

‘MARCHFELDSPARGEL’

EU No: PGI-AT-02124 — 29.2.2016

PDO ( ) PGI ( X ) TSG ( )

1.   Applicant group and legitimate interest

| Address: Verein Genuss Region Marchfeldspargel g.g.A. |
| --- |
| Marchfeldstraße 9 |
| 2304 Mannsdorf/Donau |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| Tel. +43 2212-2414 |
| Fax +43 2212-2897 |
| E-mail: spargel@sulzmann.at |

Address: Verein Genuss Region Marchfeldspargel g.g.A.

Marchfeldstraße 9

2304 Mannsdorf/Donau

ÖSTERREICH

Tel. +43 2212-2414

Fax +43 2212-2897

E-mail: spargel@sulzmann.at

The group is the original applicant group, which has a legitimate interest in updating the specification.

2.   Member State or Third Country

Austria

3.   Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment(s)

| — | ☐ | Description of product |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | ☐ | Proof of origin |
| — | ☐ | Method of production |
| — | ☐ | Link with the geographical area |
| — | ☒ | Labelling |
| — | ☐ | Other [to be specified] |

—

☐

Description of product

—

☐

Proof of origin

—

☐

Method of production

—

☐

Link with the geographical area

—

☒

Labelling

—

☐

Other [to be specified]

4.   Type of amendment(s)

| — | ☐ | Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires no amendment to the published single document |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | ☒ | Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires an amendment to the published single document |
| — | ☐ | Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, for which a single document (or equivalent) has not been published |
| — | ☐ | Amendment to product specification of registered TSG to be qualified as minor in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 |

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires no amendment to the published single document

—

☒

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires an amendment to the published single document

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, for which a single document (or equivalent) has not been published

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered TSG to be qualified as minor in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

5.   Amendment(s)

The specification (consisting of the summary and material part) relating to the protected name ‘Marchfeldspargel (PGI)’ is amended as follows:

| — | Summary:







  — | In Section 1 the details of the responsible department in the Member State have been updated to read:





  Österreichisches Patentamt |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Dresdner Straße 87 |
| 1200 Wien |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| Tel. +43 1 53424-0 |
| Fax +43 1 53424-535 |
| E-mail: herkunftsangaben@patentamt.at |

—

Summary:

—

In Section 1 the details of the responsible department in the Member State have been updated to read:

Österreichisches Patentamt

Dresdner Straße 87

1200 Wien

ÖSTERREICH

Tel. +43 1 53424-0

Fax +43 1 53424-535

E-mail: herkunftsangaben@patentamt.at

| — | Section 5) h) (Labelling) read:

  ‘Common logo; “Marchfeldspargel” and name, address, colour category, class, grade, weight, and number of packages’;

  the following has been deleted from it:

  ‘Common logo; and number of packages’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Section 5) h) (Labelling) read:

‘Common logo; “Marchfeldspargel” and name, address, colour category, class, grade, weight, and number of packages’;

the following has been deleted from it:

‘Common logo; and number of packages’.

| — | Material part:







  — | The common logo and the words ‘number of packages’ have been deleted from Annex 2, Section 5) h) (Labelling). |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Material part:

Material part:

—

The common logo and the words ‘number of packages’ have been deleted from Annex 2, Section 5) h) (Labelling).

Justification

Justification

The obligation to display the producers' common logo has been removed from the specification, as the logo is no longer used. Indicating the number of packages on the label has, in practice, proved irrelevant for monitoring purposes.

6.   Updated product specification (only for PDO and PGI)

Updated product specification (only for PDO and PGI)

The full text of the specification is available at

http://www.patentamt.at/Media/Marchfeldspargel_feb2016.pdf and can also be accessed directly via the Austrian Patent Office's website (www.patentamt.at) by navigating to the following: ‘Markenschutz/Schutzrechte/Herkunftsangabe’. The text appears under the name of the quality designation.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

‘MARCHFELDSPARGEL’

‘MARCHFELDSPARGEL’

EU No: PGI-AT-02124 — 29.2.2016

EU No: PGI-AT-02124 — 29.2.2016

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

1.   Name(s)

Name(s)

‘Marchfeldspargel’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Member State or Third Country

Austria

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff

3.1.   Type of product

Type of product

Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

3.2.   Description of product to which the name in 1 applies

Description of product to which the name in 1 applies

The asparagus stalks (= young shoots of the asparagus species Asparagus officinalis L.) must be intact, healthy, free of damage from inappropriate washing, clean, fresh in appearance and smell, pest-free and free of damage from rodents or insects, crushing, bruising or abnormal external moisture, and of foreign odours and/or taste. The cut at the base of the stalks must be as clean as possible. In addition, the asparagus stalks must be neither hollow, split, nor peeled. Small cracks which have appeared after harvesting are permitted to a limited extent. ‘Marchfeldspargel’ has a typical, fine asparagus aroma, with few bitter substances. Its taste must not be bitter or woody.

Asparagus officinalis L.

The asparagus is divided into four categories according to colour:

| — | white asparagus, |
| --- | --- |

—

white asparagus,

| — | violet asparagus: tips of a colour between pink and violet/purple and a partly white stalk, |
| --- | --- |

—

violet asparagus: tips of a colour between pink and violet/purple and a partly white stalk,

| — | violet-green asparagus: partly violet and green colouring, |
| --- | --- |

—

violet-green asparagus: partly violet and green colouring,

| — | green asparagus: tips and most of the stalk must be green. |
| --- | --- |

—

green asparagus: tips and most of the stalk must be green.

White and violet asparagus must not exceed 22 cm in length, violet-green and green asparagus must not exceed 25 cm in length.

Varieties:

—   German: Ruhm von Braunschweig, Schwetzinger Meisterschuss, Huchels Auslese, Lukullus, Vulkan, Presto, Merkur, Hermes, Eposs, Ravel, Ramos

German

green asparagus varieties (= anthocyanin-free): Spaganiva, Schneewittchen, Schneekopf,

—   Dutch: Venlim, Carlim, Gijnlim, Boonlim, Backlim, Thielim, Horlim, Prelim, Grolim,

Dutch

—   French: Larac, Cito, Aneto, Desto, Selection ‘Darbonne no4’, Selection ‘Darbonne no3’, Jacq. Ma. 2001, Jacq. Ma. 2002, Andreas, Dariana, Cipres, Viola,

French

o

o

—   United States: Mary Washington.

United States

3.3.   Feed (for products of animal origin only) and raw materials (for processed products only)

Feed (for products of animal origin only) and raw materials (for processed products only)

—

3.4.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the identified geographical area

Specific steps in production that must take place in the identified geographical area

—

3.5.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc. of the product the registered name refers to

Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc. of the product the registered name refers to

‘Marchfeldspargel’ is marketed in firmly bound bundles, stacked in boxes, or in small packs. The asparagus is sorted by size according to the diameters in the specification. The contents of each package or bundle must be uniform and must include only asparagus of the same origin, product category and colour category. The asparagus may be packaged only in anti-humidity, light-deflecting materials which can be sealed.

A special transport system ensures that the day's fresh asparagus is available throughout Austria within 24 hours.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name refers to

Specific rules concerning labelling of the product the registered name refers to

The protected label ‘Marchfeldspargel’ and name, address, colour category, class, grade, and weight.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area

Concise definition of the geographical area

Marchfeld: the fertile plain to the east of Vienna, between the rivers Danube and Morava (German: March); it is demarcated by the Danube to the south, the Morava to the east, the Weinviertel hills to the north, and the Vienna city boundary to the west.

5.   Link with the geographical area

Link with the geographical area

The Marchfeld region is influenced by the climate of the western foothills of the Pannonian Steppes and has specific soil types (riverside, chernozem, colluvial and alluvial soils with high humus levels and varying high levels of loam and loess). Together with south-east Styria, it has the most days of sunshine per year of any region in Austria and it is one of the warmest areas in the country. The Marchfeld region has been an influential asparagus-producing region since the nineteenth century (at the time of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, individual farms supplied the Viennese Court), so the farmers of ‘Marchfeldspargel’ are very experienced in asparagus cultivation. The favourable production conditions make it easy to comply with ecological standards.

‘Marchfeldspargel’ is characterised by its particularly specific asparagus aroma; it contains fewer bitter substances than comparable products and is striking on account of its particular tenderness.

The climatic conditions combined with the specific soil types provide the perfect basis for asparagus cultivation. The high mean temperatures and sufficient humidity mean that conditions are very well suited to crop growing. The wild form of asparagus is thus native to the Marchfeld region. The long experience of the farmers of ‘Marchfeldspargel’ helps to ensure that only varieties best suited to the production conditions are cultivated. Given that the asparagus varieties used are well suited to the specific soil conditions in the Marchfeld region, ‘Marchfeldspargel’ contains fewer bitter substances. Moreover, ‘Marchfeldspargel’ shoots are harvested when shorter than comparable products, so they are less woody.

‘Marchfeldspargel’ also enjoys a good reputation; the ‘Marchfeldspargel’ season is opened by leading political, business and cultural figures, and as part of this event, the ‘Marchfeldspargel’ queen is crowned.

Reference to publication of the product specification

Reference to publication of the product specification

(the second subparagraph of Article 6(1) of this Regulation)

The full text of the specification is available at http://www.patentamt.at/Media/Marchfeldspargel_feb2016.pdf

and can also be accessed directly via the Austrian Patent Office's website (www.patentamt.at) by navigating to the following: ‘Markenschutz/Schutzrechte/Herkunftsangabe’. The text appears under the name of the quality designation.

---

(1)  OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 17.

1

(2)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

2

---