# Official Journal C 235/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 235 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5113 September 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 235

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5113 September 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 235/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2008/C 235/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 417th meeting on 23 October 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams | 2 |
| 2008/C 235/03 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) | 3 |
| 2008/C 235/04 | Summary of Commission Decision of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams (notified under document number C(2006) 5342 final) | 4 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 235/05 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2008/C 235/06 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to national regional investment aid (
  1
  ) | 9 |
| 2008/C 235/07 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (
  1
  ) | 11 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 235/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2008/C 235/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 417th meeting on 23 October 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams

2

2008/C 235/03

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

3

2008/C 235/04

Summary of Commission Decision of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams (notified under document number C(2006) 5342 final)

(notified under document number C(2006) 5342 final)

4

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 235/05

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (
  1
  )

1

7

2008/C 235/06

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to national regional investment aid (
  1
  )

1

9

2008/C 235/07

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (
  1
  )

1

11

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 235/08 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4920 — Haniel/Schmidt-Ruthenbeck/Metro) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2008/C 235/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5301 — Capgemini/BAS) (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| 2008/C 235/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5253 — Sanofi-Aventis/Zentiva) (
  1
  ) | 14 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 235/08

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4920 — Haniel/Schmidt-Ruthenbeck/Metro) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

12

2008/C 235/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5301 — Capgemini/BAS) (
  1
  )

1

13

2008/C 235/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5253 — Sanofi-Aventis/Zentiva) (
  1
  )

1

14

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 235/11 | Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2008/C 235/11

Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 September 2008

(2008/C 235/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4066 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 150,91 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4561 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79620 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5173 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5998 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 128,02 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1165 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,436 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 239,60 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7044 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,3665 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6080 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,260 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7605 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7442 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5036 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9689 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1452 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0209 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 564,84 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,4952 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6282 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,1112 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 264,24 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8563 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,880 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,1060 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,788 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5360 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 14,9315 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4066

JPY

Japanese yen

150,91

DKK

Danish krone

7,4561

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79620

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5173

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5998

ISK

Iceland króna

128,02

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1165

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,436

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

239,60

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7044

PLN

Polish zloty

3,3665

RON

Romanian leu

3,6080

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,260

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7605

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7442

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5036

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9689

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1452

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0209

KRW

South Korean won

1 564,84

ZAR

South African rand

11,4952

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6282

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,1112

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 264,24

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8563

PHP

Philippine peso

65,880

RUB

Russian rouble

36,1060

THB

Thai baht

48,788

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5360

MXN

Mexican peso

14,9315

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 417th meeting on 23 October 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams

(2008/C 235/02)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the applicability of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty despite its expiry. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the applicability of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty despite its expiry.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and geographic market affected by the cartel in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and geographic market affected by the cartel in the draft decision.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's finding that the principle of ‘ne bis in idem’ does not forbid the adoption of the present decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's finding that the principle of ‘ne bis in idem’ does not forbid the adoption of the present decision.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, in particular with reference to imputation of liability to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) as economic successor to Arbed SA's activities in steel beams. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, in particular with reference to imputation of liability to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) as economic successor to Arbed SA's activities in steel beams.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's finding that the limitation period has not expired, neither with regard to Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA) nor with respect to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) nor Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA). |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's finding that the limitation period has not expired, neither with regard to Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA) nor with respect to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) nor Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA).

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on taking into account — by way of exceptional circumstances — that the Commission has already taken a position on the amount of the fine for Arbed SA, which the Court of First Instance reduced to EUR 10 million in its judgment in Case T-137/94. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on taking into account — by way of exceptional circumstances — that the Commission has already taken a position on the amount of the fine for Arbed SA, which the Court of First Instance reduced to EUR 10 million in its judgment in Case T-137/94.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

10.

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

| 11. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account ail the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

11.

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

---

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/3

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2008/C 235/03)

The draft Decision in the above-mentioned case gives rise to the following observations:

The present case presents a particular feature, since the draft Decision is a readoption of the Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994. This follows the ECJ judgment of 2 October 2003, which overturned the judgment of the CFI of 11 March 1999 and the Decision in so far as it concerned Arbed SA on procedural grounds.

On 6 May 1992, the Commission addressed a Statement of Objections to 17 European steel undertakings, including TradeArbed SA, stating on a preliminary basis that they had participated in a cartel on the Community steel beams market, in breach of Article 65, paragraph 1, of the ECSC Treaty.

On 16 February 1994, the Commission adopted Decision 94/215/CECA (the ‘Decision’), imposing fines on 14 undertakings, including Arbed SA the parent company of TradeArbed SA, for infringements committed between 1 July 1988 and 31 December 1990. No fine was imposed on TradeArbed SA.

On 8 April 1994, Arbed SA brought an action before the Court of First Instance (‘CFI’) for, inter alia, annulment of the Decision. On 11 March 1999, the CFI granted Arbed SA's application in part and reduced the fine imposed on them. Arbed SA subsequently appealed this judgment before the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’).

In its judgment of 2 October 2003, ECJ found that Arbed SA's rights of defence had been infringed during the Commission's administrative procedure, since the Decision imposing fines was addressed to Arbed SA, whilst the Statement of Objections had been sent to TradeArbed SA and had not indicated that fines might be imposed on Arbed SA. Moreover, Arbed SA were denied the right of access to the file as the Statement of Objections was not addressed to them.

As a result of the merger between Arbed, Aceralia and Usinor in 2002, Arbed SA, TradeArbed SA and ProfilArbed SA became respectively Arcelor Luxembourg SA, Arcelor International SA and Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA.

On 8 March 2006, a new Statement of Objections was addressed to Arbed SA, Arcelor International SA, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Arbed SA, and to ProfilArbed SA, the economic successors of the steel beams activities of Arbed SA and access to the file was provided.

Replies to the Statement of Objections were submitted within a six week deadline. The Parties waived their right to an oral hearing.

As regards the substance of the draft Decision, it is based on the text of the earlier Commission Decision. In addition, the Commission provides further explanations inter alia on following points:

| — | the Commission's power to impose fines is subject to a limitation period of five years which starts to run on the day when the infringements ceased. Pending the final outcome of judicial proceedings the limitation period is suspended. This applies to the legal entity which is party to the judicial proceedings. It is considered that this also applies to other legal persons which are part of the same undertaking (i.e. ‘the same economic entity)’. When the administrative proceeding is initiated again after those judicial proceedings are terminated, the Commission may adopt a new decision. That was the case in the present proceedings, |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission's power to impose fines is subject to a limitation period of five years which starts to run on the day when the infringements ceased. Pending the final outcome of judicial proceedings the limitation period is suspended. This applies to the legal entity which is party to the judicial proceedings. It is considered that this also applies to other legal persons which are part of the same undertaking (i.e. ‘the same economic entity)’. When the administrative proceeding is initiated again after those judicial proceedings are terminated, the Commission may adopt a new decision. That was the case in the present proceedings,

| — | the ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July 2002. However, it is considered that by virtue of the principle of succession of norms within a single legal order, the Commission remains competent to sanction the infringement committed before the date of expiry. |
| --- | --- |

—

the ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July 2002. However, it is considered that by virtue of the principle of succession of norms within a single legal order, the Commission remains competent to sanction the infringement committed before the date of expiry.

The draft Decision submitted to the Commission only contains objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

I conclude that the rights of the parties to be heard have been respected in the present case.

Brussels, 24 October 2006.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/4

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 8 November 2006

relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams

(notified under document number C(2006) 5342 final)

(Only the French version is authentic)

(2008/C 235/04)

On 8 November 2006, the Commission re-adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business interests. A non-confidential version of the full text of the decision can be found in the authentic languages of the case and in the Commission's working languages at DG COMP website at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html

SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

| 1. | The addressees of this Decision participated in a series of agreements and concerted practices contrary to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty in the steel beams industry. The Decision addresses co-operation between TradeArbed SA, certain European producers of steel beams and certain of their associations. The infringement's main features included price fixing, allocation of quotas, and, in a large scale, exchange of information concerning the European steel beams industry. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The addressees of this Decision participated in a series of agreements and concerted practices contrary to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty in the steel beams industry. The Decision addresses co-operation between TradeArbed SA, certain European producers of steel beams and certain of their associations. The infringement's main features included price fixing, allocation of quotas, and, in a large scale, exchange of information concerning the European steel beams industry.

| 2. | The case concerns the re-adoption of the Commission Decision (1) following the judgement of 2 October 2003 by the Court of Justice in Case C-176/99 P, Arbed v Commission
   (2) where the ECJ annulled the CFI judgement (T-137/94) (3) and on procedural grounds the Commission decision, insofar as it concerned Arbed SA. The facts and the substance of the decision are based on the findings of the earlier Commission decision with the exception of objections that were dismissed by the CFI. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The case concerns the re-adoption of the Commission Decision (1) following the judgement of 2 October 2003 by the Court of Justice in Case C-176/99 P, Arbed v Commission
   (2) where the ECJ annulled the CFI judgement (T-137/94) (3) and on procedural grounds the Commission decision, insofar as it concerned Arbed SA. The facts and the substance of the decision are based on the findings of the earlier Commission decision with the exception of objections that were dismissed by the CFI.

ADRESSEES AND DURATION OF THE INFRINGEMENT

| 3. | The Decision is addressed to three legal entities, belonging to one undertaking, group Arcelor:






  — | Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA), |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Decision is addressed to three legal entities, belonging to one undertaking, group Arcelor:

—

Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA),

| — | Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA),

| — | Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA). |
| --- | --- |

—

Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA).

| 4. | The addressees of the Decision participated in a single and continuous infringement contrary to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, covering the whole of the EC by fixing prices, allocating markets and exchanging confidential information in the steel beams industry from at least 1 July 1988 to 16 January 1991. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The addressees of the Decision participated in a single and continuous infringement contrary to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, covering the whole of the EC by fixing prices, allocating markets and exchanging confidential information in the steel beams industry from at least 1 July 1988 to 16 January 1991.

BACKGROUND

| 5. | In the mid-1970s the European steel industry underwent a crisis characterised by a fall in demand giving rise to excess supply and low prices. Between 1980 and July 1988, the Commission imposed a system of mandatory production quotas for steel beams and for other steel products. At the end of the quota system, the Commission set up a surveillance system involving the collection of statistics on productions and deliveries, monitoring of market developments and regular consultation with the various undertakings in the steel sector. The surveillance system came to an end on 30 June 1990. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the mid-1970s the European steel industry underwent a crisis characterised by a fall in demand giving rise to excess supply and low prices. Between 1980 and July 1988, the Commission imposed a system of mandatory production quotas for steel beams and for other steel products. At the end of the quota system, the Commission set up a surveillance system involving the collection of statistics on productions and deliveries, monitoring of market developments and regular consultation with the various undertakings in the steel sector. The surveillance system came to an end on 30 June 1990.

| 6. | In January 1991, the Commission carried out inspections at the offices of certain undertakings involved in the production of steel beams and associations of the undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In January 1991, the Commission carried out inspections at the offices of certain undertakings involved in the production of steel beams and associations of the undertakings.

| 7. | The Commission sent a Statement of Objections to a number of undertakings on 6 May 1992 and held oral hearings at the beginning of 1993. On 16 February 1994, the Commission adopted a decision (4) by which it found that 14 European steel undertakings and one of their trade associations, Eurofer, had participated in a series of agreements, decisions and concerted practices designed to fix prices, share markets and exchange confidential information on the EC market for steel beams, in breach of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. Altogether fourteen undertakings were fined for infringements committed between 1 July 1988 and the end of 1990. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Commission sent a Statement of Objections to a number of undertakings on 6 May 1992 and held oral hearings at the beginning of 1993. On 16 February 1994, the Commission adopted a decision (4) by which it found that 14 European steel undertakings and one of their trade associations, Eurofer, had participated in a series of agreements, decisions and concerted practices designed to fix prices, share markets and exchange confidential information on the EC market for steel beams, in breach of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. Altogether fourteen undertakings were fined for infringements committed between 1 July 1988 and the end of 1990.

| 8. | In April 1994, Arbed, and nine other undertakings and Eurofer brought actions before the CFI for annulment and/or reduction of the fines imposed. In 1999, the CFI in the main (in Case T-137/94), upheld the Commission decision. However it reduced the individual fines (5). Following this judgement, Arbed together with seven other undertakings and Eurofer brought actions before the ECJ claiming that the Court should set aside the judgements by the CFI. |
| --- | --- |

8.

In April 1994, Arbed, and nine other undertakings and Eurofer brought actions before the CFI for annulment and/or reduction of the fines imposed. In 1999, the CFI in the main (in Case T-137/94), upheld the Commission decision. However it reduced the individual fines (5). Following this judgement, Arbed together with seven other undertakings and Eurofer brought actions before the ECJ claiming that the Court should set aside the judgements by the CFI.

| 9. | On 2 October 2003, the European Court of Justice (in Case C-176/99 P, Arbed v Commission) dismissed the appeals brought by Eurofer and six other undertakings (6). However, the appeal brought by Arbed was fully granted. |
| --- | --- |

9.

On 2 October 2003, the European Court of Justice (in Case C-176/99 P, Arbed v Commission) dismissed the appeals brought by Eurofer and six other undertakings (6). However, the appeal brought by Arbed was fully granted.

| 10. | The ECJ annulled in its entirety the CFI judgement and the Commission decision in so far it concerns Arbed. The ECJ found that Arbed's rights of defence had been infringed during the administrative procedure. The Commission decision imposing fines was addressed to Arbed, while the Statement of Objections had been sent to TradeArbed, Arbed's subsidiary, and had not indicated that fines might be imposed on Arbed. Moreover, Arbed had been denied a right of access to the file as the Statement of Objections was not addressed to it. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The ECJ annulled in its entirety the CFI judgement and the Commission decision in so far it concerns Arbed. The ECJ found that Arbed's rights of defence had been infringed during the administrative procedure. The Commission decision imposing fines was addressed to Arbed, while the Statement of Objections had been sent to TradeArbed, Arbed's subsidiary, and had not indicated that fines might be imposed on Arbed. Moreover, Arbed had been denied a right of access to the file as the Statement of Objections was not addressed to it.

| 11. | It is held that none of the addressees can seek application of the limitation period. It is considered that the suspension of the limitation period does not only apply to the legal entity which is a party to the proceedings of an appeal (ex-Arbed SA) but to all the companies which make up the economic undertaking presided over by Arbed SA, that includes the other addressees. |
| --- | --- |

11.

It is held that none of the addressees can seek application of the limitation period. It is considered that the suspension of the limitation period does not only apply to the legal entity which is a party to the proceedings of an appeal (ex-Arbed SA) but to all the companies which make up the economic undertaking presided over by Arbed SA, that includes the other addressees.

PROCEDURE

| 12. | Following the judgement of 2 October 2003 by the ECJ, the Commission decided to re-open the procedure as regards Arbed SA and issued a Statement of Objection on 8 March 2006 correcting the procedural error which consisted in addressing the annulled decision to Arbed SA, which was not an addressee of the original Statement of Objections of 6 February 1992. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Following the judgement of 2 October 2003 by the ECJ, the Commission decided to re-open the procedure as regards Arbed SA and issued a Statement of Objection on 8 March 2006 correcting the procedural error which consisted in addressing the annulled decision to Arbed SA, which was not an addressee of the original Statement of Objections of 6 February 1992.

| 13. | The Statement of Objections was addressed to Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA), Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA) (7), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Arbed SA, and to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA), the economic successors of the steel beams activities of Arbed SA. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The Statement of Objections was addressed to Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA), Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA) (7), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Arbed SA, and to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA), the economic successors of the steel beams activities of Arbed SA.

| 14. | All three companies responded to the Statement of Objections on 20 April 2006. In their replies, none of the three companies contest the facts or their legal appreciation by the CFI as retained in its judgement T-137/94 and reproduced by this decision. No oral hearing was held in this case. |
| --- | --- |

14.

All three companies responded to the Statement of Objections on 20 April 2006. In their replies, none of the three companies contest the facts or their legal appreciation by the CFI as retained in its judgement T-137/94 and reproduced by this decision. No oral hearing was held in this case.

| 15. | The Commission considers that it is competent to adopt this decision. Such competence arises from the succession within a single legal framework of Article 81 of the EC Treaty as a lex generalis and Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty as a lex specialis, at the time of the expiry of the latter treaty. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The Commission considers that it is competent to adopt this decision. Such competence arises from the succession within a single legal framework of Article 81 of the EC Treaty as a lex generalis and Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty as a lex specialis, at the time of the expiry of the latter treaty.

THE STEEL BEAMS INDUSTRY

| 16. | The products concerned in the present case are wide-flanged beams and other I, H, and U sections with a diameter of 80 mm and more (with the exception of mine frame sections). These products are together referred to as ‘beams’. They are finished hot-rolled long products which are mainly used in the construction industry. Beams are ECSC products within the meaning of Article 81 of the ECSC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

16.

The products concerned in the present case are wide-flanged beams and other I, H, and U sections with a diameter of 80 mm and more (with the exception of mine frame sections). These products are together referred to as ‘beams’. They are finished hot-rolled long products which are mainly used in the construction industry. Beams are ECSC products within the meaning of Article 81 of the ECSC Treaty.

| 17. | The cartel covered the whole of the Community. The size of the steel beams market in the EC in 1990, last complete year of the infringement was EUR 2,54 billion. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The cartel covered the whole of the Community. The size of the steel beams market in the EC in 1990, last complete year of the infringement was EUR 2,54 billion.

FUNCTIONING OF THE CARTEL

| 18. | The co-operation between European producers and distributors of beams and some of their associations proceeded on different levels. On a community level, the most important forum for this co-operation was the meetings of a group know as the ‘Poutrelles Committee’, one of the committees of Eurofer. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The co-operation between European producers and distributors of beams and some of their associations proceeded on different levels. On a community level, the most important forum for this co-operation was the meetings of a group know as the ‘Poutrelles Committee’, one of the committees of Eurofer.

| 19. | Apart from the meetings of the Poutrelles Committee, undertakings and associations of undertakings also meet or met, on a more irregular basis, to discuss the markets of individual Member States, namely Italy, France and Germany, and to co-ordinate their behaviour on these markets. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Apart from the meetings of the Poutrelles Committee, undertakings and associations of undertakings also meet or met, on a more irregular basis, to discuss the markets of individual Member States, namely Italy, France and Germany, and to co-ordinate their behaviour on these markets.

| 20. | In addition, some companies entered into individual market sharing and/or price fixing arrangements. |
| --- | --- |

20.

In addition, some companies entered into individual market sharing and/or price fixing arrangements.

| 21. | Finally, undertakings and associations of undertakings from the Community regularly met their counterparts from Norway, Sweden and Finland at the so-called ‘Eurofer/Scandinavia’ meetings where the Scandinavian meetings markets were discussed. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Finally, undertakings and associations of undertakings from the Community regularly met their counterparts from Norway, Sweden and Finland at the so-called ‘Eurofer/Scandinavia’ meetings where the Scandinavian meetings markets were discussed.

FINES

| 22. | The Decision maintains the fine at the same level as defined by the CFI in its judgement in Case T-137/94. |
| --- | --- |

22.

The Decision maintains the fine at the same level as defined by the CFI in its judgement in Case T-137/94.

| 23. | Therefore, in applying the guidelines on fines in force at the time of the decision, a theoretical calculation of the fine is undertaken, the total amount of which is reduced, for exceptional circumstances, to the amount decided by the CFI, namely EUR 10 million. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Therefore, in applying the guidelines on fines in force at the time of the decision, a theoretical calculation of the fine is undertaken, the total amount of which is reduced, for exceptional circumstances, to the amount decided by the CFI, namely EUR 10 million.

| 24. | The size of the steel beams market in the EC in 1990, last complete year of the infringement was EUR 2,54 billion. The infringement is therefore considered very serious and thus, according to the guidelines on fines, the starting amount of the fine must be above EUR 20 million. |
| --- | --- |

24.

The size of the steel beams market in the EC in 1990, last complete year of the infringement was EUR 2,54 billion. The infringement is therefore considered very serious and thus, according to the guidelines on fines, the starting amount of the fine must be above EUR 20 million.

| 25. | The infringement lasted between July 1988 and January 1991, which represents a period of two and a half years. Consequently, it is considered appropriate to increase the starting amount of the fine by 25 %. |
| --- | --- |

25.

The infringement lasted between July 1988 and January 1991, which represents a period of two and a half years. Consequently, it is considered appropriate to increase the starting amount of the fine by 25 %.

| 26. | In the present case, there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

26.

In the present case, there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

| 27. | The level of 10 % of the total turnover of the group is not reached, so no adjustment of the fine is necessary. |
| --- | --- |

27.

The level of 10 % of the total turnover of the group is not reached, so no adjustment of the fine is necessary.

| 28. | Finally, due to exceptional circumstances, i.e. the judgement of the Court of First Instance which reduced the initial amount of the fine to EUR 10 million, the final amount of the fine is reduced to EUR 10 million. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Finally, due to exceptional circumstances, i.e. the judgement of the Court of First Instance which reduced the initial amount of the fine to EUR 10 million, the final amount of the fine is reduced to EUR 10 million.

DECISION

| 29. | A fine of EUR 10 million is hereby imposed on Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA), Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA) and Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) jointly and severally. |
| --- | --- |

29.

A fine of EUR 10 million is hereby imposed on Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA), Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA) and Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) jointly and severally.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1).

(2)  Case C-176/99 P, Arbed SA v Commission [2003] ECR I-10687.

(3)  Case T-137/94, Arbed SA v Commission [1999] ECR II-003063.

(4)  OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1.

(5)  Arbed's fine was reduced from EUR 11 200 000 to EUR 10 000 000.

(6)  The appeal brought by Aristrain Madrid was partly granted, and referred back to the CFI to determine the appropriate level of the fine.

(7)  Following the creation of Arcelor as a result of the merger between Arbed, Aceralia and Usinor in 2002, TradeArbed SA has changed name to Arcelor International.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/7

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 235/05)

| Aid No | XE 29/08 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | Opolskie |
| Title of aid scheme | Program w sprawie zwolnienia przedsiębiorców od podatku od nieruchomości w ramach pomocy horyzontalnej (Namysłów) |
| Legal basis | — | Uchwała nr III/14/06 Rady Miejskiej w Namysłowie z dnia 14 grudnia 2006 r. w sprawie zwolnienia przedsiębiorców od podatku od nieruchomości w ramach pomocy horyzontalnej (Dz.U. Woj. opolskiego z 2006 r. nr 91, poz. 2692), |

Aid No

XE 29/08

Member State

Poland

Region

Opolskie

Title of aid scheme

Program w sprawie zwolnienia przedsiębiorców od podatku od nieruchomości w ramach pomocy horyzontalnej (Namysłów)

Legal basis

—

Uchwała nr III/14/06 Rady Miejskiej w Namysłowie z dnia 14 grudnia 2006 r. w sprawie zwolnienia przedsiębiorców od podatku od nieruchomości w ramach pomocy horyzontalnej (Dz.U. Woj. opolskiego z 2006 r. nr 91, poz. 2692),

| — | Uchwała nr IX/71/07 Rady Miejskiej w Namysłowie z dnia 31 maja 2007 r. zmieniająca uchwałę w sprawie zwolnienia przedsiębiorców od podatku od nieruchomości w ramach pomocy horyzontalnej (Dz.U. Woj. opolskiego z 2007 r. nr 54, poz. 1720), |
| --- | --- |

—

Uchwała nr IX/71/07 Rady Miejskiej w Namysłowie z dnia 31 maja 2007 r. zmieniająca uchwałę w sprawie zwolnienia przedsiębiorców od podatku od nieruchomości w ramach pomocy horyzontalnej (Dz.U. Woj. opolskiego z 2007 r. nr 54, poz. 1720),

| — | Art. 7 ust. 3 ustawy z dnia 12 stycznia 1991 r. o podatkach i opłatach lokalnych (Dz.U. z 2006 r. nr 121, poz. 844 ze zm.) |
| --- | --- |

—

Art. 7 ust. 3 ustawy z dnia 12 stycznia 1991 r. o podatkach i opłatach lokalnych (Dz.U. z 2006 r. nr 121, poz. 844 ze zm.)

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 52 250

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(5), 5 and 6 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

9.2007

Duration

31.12.2008

Objective

Art. 4: Creation of employment

Economic sectors

All Community sectors (1) eligible for employment aid

Name and address of the granting authority

| Burmistrz Namysłowa |
| --- |
| ul. Dubois 3 |
| PL-46-100 Namysłów |

Burmistrz Namysłowa

ul. Dubois 3

PL-46-100 Namysłów

| Aid No | XE 30/08 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Calabria |
| Title of aid scheme | Concessione di incentivi alle imprese per ľincremento occupazionale e la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti. P.O.R. Calabria 2000/2006. Asse III Risorse Umane (FSE) Mis. 3.2 — Inserimento e reinserimento del mercato del lavoro e Mis. 3.4 — Inserimento lavorativo e reinserimento di gruppi svantaggiati. P.O.R. Calabria FSE 2007-2013, Asse 11 Occupabilità, obiettivo operativo E. 1 |
| Legal basis | Decreto dirigente generale dipartimento n. 10 Regione Calabria — n. 6986 del 4 giugno 2008 — pubblicato sul BURC — parte III — supplemento straordinario n. 01 al n. 022 del 30 maggio 2008. Avviso pubblico per la concessione di incentivi alle imprese per ľincremento occupazionale e la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti. P.O.R. Calabria 2000/2006. Asse III Risorse umane (FSE) Mis. 3.2 — Inserimento e reinserimento del mercato del lavoro e Mis. 3.4 — Inserimento lavorativo e reinserimento di gruppi svantaggiati. P.O.R. Calabria FSE 2007-2013, Asse II Occupabilità, obiettivo operativo E.l — Rafforzare ľinserimento (reinserimento lavorativo dei lavoratori adulti, dei disoccupati di lunga durata e dei bacini di precariato occupazionale attraverso percorsi integrati e incentivi) |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 20 million |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(5), 5 and 6 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 9.6.2008 |
| Duration | 31.12.2008 |
| Objective | Art. 4: Creation of employment; Art. 5: Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers; Art. 6: Employment of disabled workers |
| Economic sectors | All Community sectors (2) eligible for employment aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Regione Calabria — Dipartimento n. 10 lavoro, politiche della formazione professionale, cooperazione e volontariato |
| Via Lucrezia della Valle |
| I-88100 Catanzaro |

Aid No

XE 30/08

Member State

Italy

Region

Calabria

Title of aid scheme

Concessione di incentivi alle imprese per ľincremento occupazionale e la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti. P.O.R. Calabria 2000/2006. Asse III Risorse Umane (FSE) Mis. 3.2 — Inserimento e reinserimento del mercato del lavoro e Mis. 3.4 — Inserimento lavorativo e reinserimento di gruppi svantaggiati. P.O.R. Calabria FSE 2007-2013, Asse 11 Occupabilità, obiettivo operativo E. 1

Legal basis

Decreto dirigente generale dipartimento n. 10 Regione Calabria — n. 6986 del 4 giugno 2008 — pubblicato sul BURC — parte III — supplemento straordinario n. 01 al n. 022 del 30 maggio 2008. Avviso pubblico per la concessione di incentivi alle imprese per ľincremento occupazionale e la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti. P.O.R. Calabria 2000/2006. Asse III Risorse umane (FSE) Mis. 3.2 — Inserimento e reinserimento del mercato del lavoro e Mis. 3.4 — Inserimento lavorativo e reinserimento di gruppi svantaggiati. P.O.R. Calabria FSE 2007-2013, Asse II Occupabilità, obiettivo operativo E.l — Rafforzare ľinserimento (reinserimento lavorativo dei lavoratori adulti, dei disoccupati di lunga durata e dei bacini di precariato occupazionale attraverso percorsi integrati e incentivi)

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 20 million

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(5), 5 and 6 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

9.6.2008

Duration

31.12.2008

Objective

Art. 4: Creation of employment; Art. 5: Recruitment of disadvantaged and disabled workers; Art. 6: Employment of disabled workers

Economic sectors

All Community sectors (2) eligible for employment aid

Name and address of the granting authority

Regione Calabria — Dipartimento n. 10 lavoro, politiche della formazione professionale, cooperazione e volontariato

Via Lucrezia della Valle

I-88100 Catanzaro

---

(1)  With the exception of the shipbuilding sector and other sectors subject to special rules in regulations and directives governing all State aid within the sector.

(2)  With the exception of the shipbuilding sector and other sectors subject to special rules in regulations and directives governing all State aid within the sector.

---

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/9

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to national regional investment aid

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 235/06)

| Aid No | XR 68/08 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Romania |
| Region | — |
| Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement | Schemă de ajutor de stat pentru dezvoltare regională prin sprijinirea investiţiilor în turism |
| Legal basis | Ordinul Ministrului Dezvoltării, Lucrărilor Publice și Locuinţelor nr. 261 din data de 3.3.2008, privind aprobarea Schemei de ajutor de stat pentru dezvoltare regională prin sprijinirea investiţiilor în turism din cadrul Programului Operaţional Regional 2007-2013 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, Nr. 207/18.3.2008) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Overall budget | RON 426,25 million; Paid over: 3 years |
| Maximum aid intensity | 50 % |
| In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 1.4.2008 |
| Duration | 31.12.2010 |
| Economic sectors | Limited to specific sectors |
| NACE: I, R (9104, 931, 932) |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerul Dezvoltării, Lucrărilor Publice și Locuinţelor |
| Strada Apolodor nr. 17, sector 5 |
| RO-050741, București |
| Tel. (40-37) 211 16 36 |

Aid No

XR 68/08

Member State

Romania

Region

—

Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement

Schemă de ajutor de stat pentru dezvoltare regională prin sprijinirea investiţiilor în turism

Legal basis

Ordinul Ministrului Dezvoltării, Lucrărilor Publice și Locuinţelor nr. 261 din data de 3.3.2008, privind aprobarea Schemei de ajutor de stat pentru dezvoltare regională prin sprijinirea investiţiilor în turism din cadrul Programului Operaţional Regional 2007-2013 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Partea I, Nr. 207/18.3.2008)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Overall budget

RON 426,25 million; Paid over: 3 years

Maximum aid intensity

50 %

In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

1.4.2008

Duration

31.12.2010

Economic sectors

Limited to specific sectors

NACE: I, R (9104, 931, 932)

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerul Dezvoltării, Lucrărilor Publice și Locuinţelor

Strada Apolodor nr. 17, sector 5

RO-050741, București

Tel. (40-37) 211 16 36

Internet address of the publication of the aid scheme

http://www.inforegio.ro/index.php?page=STATE_AID

Other information

—

| Aid No | XR 76/08 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Region | Vlaams Gewest |
| Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement | Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot toekenning van strategische investerings- en opleidingssteun aan ondernemingen in het Vlaams Gewest |
| Legal basis | Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot toekenning van strategische investerings- en opleidingssteun aan ondernemingen in het Vlaams Gewest van 22.2.2008 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Annual budget | EUR 30 million |
| Maximum aid intensity | 10 % |
| In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 18.4.2008 |
| Duration | 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors eligible for regional investment aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Vlaamse Overheid — Agenstschap Economie |
| Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 12 |
| B-1000 Brussel |

Aid No

XR 76/08

Member State

Belgium

Region

Vlaams Gewest

Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement

Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot toekenning van strategische investerings- en opleidingssteun aan ondernemingen in het Vlaams Gewest

Legal basis

Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot toekenning van strategische investerings- en opleidingssteun aan ondernemingen in het Vlaams Gewest van 22.2.2008

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Annual budget

EUR 30 million

Maximum aid intensity

10 %

In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

18.4.2008

Duration

31.12.2013

Economic sectors

All sectors eligible for regional investment aid

Name and address of the granting authority

Vlaamse Overheid — Agenstschap Economie

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 12

B-1000 Brussel

Internet address of the publication of the aid scheme

http://212.123.19.141/ALLESNL/wet/index

Other information

—

---

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/11

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 235/07)

| Reference number of the aid | XT 77/08 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Calabria |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Incentivi alle imprese di grandi dimensioni per la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti |
| Legal basis | Decreto dirigente generale dipartimento n. 10 Regione Calabria n. del 27 giugno 2008 — pubblicato in data 30 giugno 2008 sul BURC— parte III Avviso pubblico per la concessione di incentivi alle imprese di grandi dimensioni per l'incremento occupazionale e la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti. POR Calabria 2000/2006, Asse III Risorse umane (FSE). Misura 3.2 — Inserimento e reinserimento nel mercato del lavoro e Misura 3.4 Inserimento lavorativo e reinserimento di gruppi svantaggiati. POR Calabria FSE 2007/2013, Asse II Occupabilità, obiettivo operativo E.1 Rafforzare l'inserimento (reinserimento lavorativo dei lavoratori adulti, dei disoccupati di lunga durata e dei bacini di precariato occupazionale attraverso percorsi integrati e incentivi) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 14 million |
| Maximum aid intensity | In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 30.6.2008 |
| Duration | 31.12.2008 |
| Objective | General training
  Specific training |
| Economic sectors | All sectors eligible for training aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Regione Calabria dipartimento n. 10 lavoro, politiche della famiglia, formazione professionale, cooperazione e volontariato |
| Via Lucrezia della Valle |
| I-88100 Catanzaro |

Reference number of the aid

XT 77/08

Member State

Italy

Region

Calabria

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Incentivi alle imprese di grandi dimensioni per la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti

Legal basis

Decreto dirigente generale dipartimento n. 10 Regione Calabria n. del 27 giugno 2008 — pubblicato in data 30 giugno 2008 sul BURC— parte III Avviso pubblico per la concessione di incentivi alle imprese di grandi dimensioni per l'incremento occupazionale e la formazione in azienda dei neoassunti. POR Calabria 2000/2006, Asse III Risorse umane (FSE). Misura 3.2 — Inserimento e reinserimento nel mercato del lavoro e Misura 3.4 Inserimento lavorativo e reinserimento di gruppi svantaggiati. POR Calabria FSE 2007/2013, Asse II Occupabilità, obiettivo operativo E.1 Rafforzare l'inserimento (reinserimento lavorativo dei lavoratori adulti, dei disoccupati di lunga durata e dei bacini di precariato occupazionale attraverso percorsi integrati e incentivi)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 14 million

Maximum aid intensity

In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation

Date of implementation

30.6.2008

Duration

31.12.2008

Objective

General training

Specific training

Economic sectors

All sectors eligible for training aid

Name and address of the granting authority

Regione Calabria dipartimento n. 10 lavoro, politiche della famiglia, formazione professionale, cooperazione e volontariato

Via Lucrezia della Valle

I-88100 Catanzaro

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4920 — Haniel/Schmidt-Ruthenbeck/Metro)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 235/08)

| 1. | On 5 September 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Franz-Haniel & Cie GmbH (‘Haniel’, Germany) and Gesellschafterstamm Schmidt-Ruthenbeck (‘Schmidt-Ruthenbeck’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Metro AG (‘Metro’, Germany) by way of pooling of voting rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 5 September 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Franz-Haniel & Cie GmbH (‘Haniel’, Germany) and Gesellschafterstamm Schmidt-Ruthenbeck (‘Schmidt-Ruthenbeck’, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Metro AG (‘Metro’, Germany) by way of pooling of voting rights.

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






  — | for Haniel: wholesale of pharmaproducts and operation of pharmacies, trade with raw materials for the steel industry, textile and washroom hygiene services, business-to-business distance selling of office and warehouse equipment as well as production of construction materials, dry-mortarless construction systems and raw materials for the building industry, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Haniel: wholesale of pharmaproducts and operation of pharmacies, trade with raw materials for the steel industry, textile and washroom hygiene services, business-to-business distance selling of office and warehouse equipment as well as production of construction materials, dry-mortarless construction systems and raw materials for the building industry,

| — | for Schmidt-Ruthenbeck: holiday hotels, image processing systems, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Schmidt-Ruthenbeck: holiday hotels, image processing systems,

| — | for Metro: cash and carry markets, hypermarkets and supermarkets for daily consumer goods, retailers for consumer electronics and department stores. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Metro: cash and carry markets, hypermarkets and supermarkets for daily consumer goods, retailers for consumer electronics and department stores.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4920 — Haniel/Schmidt-Ruthenbeck/Metro, to the following address:





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

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4920 — Haniel/Schmidt-Ruthenbeck/Metro, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

---

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5301 — Capgemini/BAS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 235/09)

| 1. | On 8 September 2008, 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 Cap Gemini SA (‘Capgemini’, France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Getronics PinkRoccade Business Application Services BV (‘BAS’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 8 September 2008, 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 Cap Gemini SA (‘Capgemini’, France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Getronics PinkRoccade Business Application Services BV (‘BAS’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Capgemini: global services company active through various companies in consulting and information services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Capgemini: global services company active through various companies in consulting and information services,

| — | for BAS: provision of application life cycle management, including controlled migration, application management, testing, development, integration, implementation projects, project management and consulting. |
| --- | --- |

—

for BAS: provision of application life cycle management, including controlled migration, application management, testing, development, integration, implementation projects, project management and consulting.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5301 — Capgemini/BAS, to the following address:





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

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5301 — Capgemini/BAS, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

---

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5253 — Sanofi-Aventis/Zentiva)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 235/10)

| 1. | On 5 September 2008, 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 Sanofi-Aventis Europe, société par actions simplifiée (France), belonging to the Sanofi-Aventis group (France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Zentiva NV (the Netherlands) by way of a public bid announced on 11 July 2008. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 5 September 2008, 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 Sanofi-Aventis Europe, société par actions simplifiée (France), belonging to the Sanofi-Aventis group (France), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Zentiva NV (the Netherlands) by way of a public bid announced on 11 July 2008.

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






  — | for Sanofi-Aventis: research, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals and human vaccines, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Sanofi-Aventis: research, development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals and human vaccines,

| — | for Zentiva: development, manufacturing and marketing of branded generic pharmaceuticals. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Zentiva: development, manufacturing and marketing of branded generic pharmaceuticals.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5253 — Sanofi-Aventis/Zentiva to the following address:





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

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5253 — Sanofi-Aventis/Zentiva to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

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

---

13.9.2008

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---