# Official Journal L 166/28 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 166 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4828 June 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 166

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4828 June 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 977/2005 of 27 June 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 978/2005 of 27 June 2005 opening tariff quotas for the import of special preferential raw cane sugar from the ACP States and India for supply to refineries in the period 1 July 2005 to 28 February 2006 | 3 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 979/2005 of 27 June 2005 opening an invitation to tender for the allocation of A3 export licences for fruit and vegetables (tomatoes, oranges, table grapes, apples and peaches) | 5 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

Commission Regulation (EC) No 977/2005 of 27 June 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EC) No 978/2005 of 27 June 2005 opening tariff quotas for the import of special preferential raw cane sugar from the ACP States and India for supply to refineries in the period 1 July 2005 to 28 February 2006

3

Commission Regulation (EC) No 979/2005 of 27 June 2005 opening an invitation to tender for the allocation of A3 export licences for fruit and vegetables (tomatoes, oranges, table grapes, apples and peaches)

5

| | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission |
| | * | Commission Decision of 27 November 2002 relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC Treaty against BPB PLC, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard)
  (notified under document number C(2002) 4570) | 8 |
| | * | Commission Decision of 24 June 2005 concerning the financing of studies, impact assessments and evaluations covering the areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics | 12 |

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

Commission

*

Commission Decision of 27 November 2002 relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC Treaty against BPB PLC, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard)
  (notified under document number C(2002) 4570)

(notified under document number C(2002) 4570)

8

*

Commission Decision of 24 June 2005 concerning the financing of studies, impact assessments and evaluations covering the areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics

12

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 209/2003 of 3 February 2003 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products originating in Lebanon ( OJ L 28, 4.2.2003 ) | 14 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 209/2003 of 3 February 2003 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products originating in Lebanon ( OJ L 28, 4.2.2003 )

14

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.

---

I Acts whose publication is obligatory

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 166/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 166/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 977/2005

of 27 June 2005

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

| (2) | In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 June 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

1

---

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 27 June 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | 052 | 54,7 |
| 999 | 54,7 |
| 0707 00 05 | 052 | 87,8 |
| 999 | 87,8 |
| 0709 90 70 | 052 | 91,3 |
| 999 | 91,3 |
| 0805 50 10 | 382 | 52,4 |
| 388 | 66,8 |
| 528 | 66,6 |
| 624 | 71,1 |
| 999 | 64,2 |
| 0808 10 80 | 388 | 93,1 |
| 400 | 107,4 |
| 508 | 92,8 |
| 512 | 66,9 |
| 524 | 46,4 |
| 528 | 63,7 |
| 720 | 56,7 |
| 804 | 95,7 |
| 999 | 77,8 |
| 0809 10 00 | 052 | 176,4 |
| 624 | 188,8 |
| 999 | 182,6 |
| 0809 20 95 | 052 | 242,3 |
| 068 | 148,4 |
| 400 | 325,6 |
| 999 | 238,8 |
| 0809 30 10 , 0809 30 90 | 052 | 157,0 |
| 999 | 157,0 |
| 0809 40 05 | 624 | 122,3 |
| 999 | 122,3 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

052

54,7

999

54,7

0707 00 05

052

87,8

999

87,8

0709 90 70

052

91,3

999

91,3

0805 50 10

382

52,4

388

66,8

528

66,6

624

71,1

999

64,2

0808 10 80

388

93,1

400

107,4

508

92,8

512

66,9

524

46,4

528

63,7

720

56,7

804

95,7

999

77,8

0809 10 00

052

176,4

624

188,8

999

182,6

0809 20 95

052

242,3

068

148,4

400

325,6

999

238,8

0809 30 10 , 0809 30 90

052

157,0

999

157,0

0809 40 05

624

122,3

999

122,3

---

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘
  999
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 166/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 166/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 978/2005

of 27 June 2005

opening tariff quotas for the import of special preferential raw cane sugar from the ACP States and India for supply to refineries in the period 1 July 2005 to 28 February 2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 39(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 39(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 lays down that, during the 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 marketing years and in order to ensure adequate supplies to Community refineries, a special reduced duty is to be levied on imports of raw cane sugar originating in states with which the Community has concluded supply arrangements on preferential terms. At present such agreements have been concluded by Council Decision 2001/870/EC (2) with the ACP States referred to in Protocol No 3 on ACP sugar (3) attached to Annex V to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, and with the Republic of India. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 39(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 lays down that, during the 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 marketing years and in order to ensure adequate supplies to Community refineries, a special reduced duty is to be levied on imports of raw cane sugar originating in states with which the Community has concluded supply arrangements on preferential terms. At present such agreements have been concluded by Council Decision 2001/870/EC (2) with the ACP States referred to in Protocol No 3 on ACP sugar (3) attached to Annex V to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, and with the Republic of India.

| (2) | The agreements in the form of an exchange of letters concluded by Decision 2001/870/EC lay down that the refiners in question must pay a minimum purchase price equal to the guaranteed price for raw sugar, minus the adjustment aid fixed for the marketing year in question. This minimum price must therefore be fixed by taking account of the factors applying in the 2005/2006 marketing year. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The agreements in the form of an exchange of letters concluded by Decision 2001/870/EC lay down that the refiners in question must pay a minimum purchase price equal to the guaranteed price for raw sugar, minus the adjustment aid fixed for the marketing year in question. This minimum price must therefore be fixed by taking account of the factors applying in the 2005/2006 marketing year.

| (3) | The quantities of special preferential sugar to be imported are calculated in accordance with Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the basis of a Community forecast supply balance. The balance indicates the need to import raw sugar and to open for the 2005/2006 marketing year tariff quotas at the special reduced rate of duty as provided for in the above agreements so that the Community refineries' supply needs can be met for part of the year. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The quantities of special preferential sugar to be imported are calculated in accordance with Article 39 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the basis of a Community forecast supply balance. The balance indicates the need to import raw sugar and to open for the 2005/2006 marketing year tariff quotas at the special reduced rate of duty as provided for in the above agreements so that the Community refineries' supply needs can be met for part of the year.

| (4) | In view of the forecasts for raw cane sugar production which are now available for the 2005/2006 marketing year and the shortfall resulting from the forecast supply balance, provision should be made to authorise imports for the period 1 July 2005 to 28 February 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In view of the forecasts for raw cane sugar production which are now available for the 2005/2006 marketing year and the shortfall resulting from the forecast supply balance, provision should be made to authorise imports for the period 1 July 2005 to 28 February 2006.

| (5) | It should be stipulated that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 of 30 June 2003 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years for the import of cane sugar under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements and amending Regulations (EC) No 1464/95 and (EC) No 779/96 (4) applies to the new quota. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

It should be stipulated that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 of 30 June 2003 laying down detailed rules of application for the 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years for the import of cane sugar under certain tariff quotas and preferential agreements and amending Regulations (EC) No 1464/95 and (EC) No 779/96 (4) applies to the new quota.

| (6) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following quotas are hereby opened for the period 1 July 2005 to 28 February 2006 pursuant to Decision 2001/870/EC in respect of imports of raw cane sugar for refining falling within CN code 1701 11 10:

| (a) | a tariff quota of 90 000 tonnes expressed as white sugar originating in the ACP States parties to the agreements in the form of an exchange of letters approved by Decision 2001/870/EC;
  and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a tariff quota of 90 000 tonnes expressed as white sugar originating in the ACP States parties to the agreements in the form of an exchange of letters approved by Decision 2001/870/EC;

and

| (b) | a tariff quota of 10 000 tonnes expressed as white sugar originating in India. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a tariff quota of 10 000 tonnes expressed as white sugar originating in India.

Article 2

1.   The special reduced duty per 100 kg of standard-quality raw sugar applying to imports of the quantities referred to in Article 1 shall be EUR 0.

2.   The minimum purchase price to be paid by Community refiners for the period referred to in Article 1 shall be EUR 49,68 per 100 kg of standard-quality raw sugar.

Article 3

Regulation (EC) No 1159/2003 shall apply to the tariff quota opened by this Regulation.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 July 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 325, 8.12.2001, p. 21.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 162, 1.7.2003, p. 25. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 568/2005 (OJ L 97, 15.4.2005, p. 9).

4

---

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 166/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 166/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 979/2005

of 27 June 2005

opening an invitation to tender for the allocation of A3 export licences for fruit and vegetables (tomatoes, oranges, table grapes, apples and peaches)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 35(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 (2) lays down the detailed rules of application for export refunds on fruit and vegetables. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 (2) lays down the detailed rules of application for export refunds on fruit and vegetables.

| (2) | Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that, to the extent necessary for economically significant exports, the products exported by the Community may be covered by export refunds, within the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 35(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that, to the extent necessary for economically significant exports, the products exported by the Community may be covered by export refunds, within the limits resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty.

| (3) | Under Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, care must be taken to ensure that the trade flows previously brought about by the refund scheme are not disrupted. For this reason and because exports of fruit and vegetables are seasonal in nature, the quantities scheduled for each product should be fixed, based on the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds established by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3). These quantities must be allocated taking account of the perishability of the products concerned. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Under Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, care must be taken to ensure that the trade flows previously brought about by the refund scheme are not disrupted. For this reason and because exports of fruit and vegetables are seasonal in nature, the quantities scheduled for each product should be fixed, based on the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds established by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3). These quantities must be allocated taking account of the perishability of the products concerned.

| (4) | Article 35(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that refunds must be fixed in the light of the existing situation and outlook for fruit and vegetable prices on the Community market and supplies available, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, prices on the international market. Account must also be taken of the transport and marketing costs and of the economic aspect of the exports planned. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Article 35(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 provides that refunds must be fixed in the light of the existing situation and outlook for fruit and vegetable prices on the Community market and supplies available, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, prices on the international market. Account must also be taken of the transport and marketing costs and of the economic aspect of the exports planned.

| (5) | In accordance with Article 35(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, prices on the Community market are to be established in the light of the most favourable prices from the export standpoint. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In accordance with Article 35(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, prices on the Community market are to be established in the light of the most favourable prices from the export standpoint.

| (6) | The international trade situation or the special requirements of certain markets may call for the refund on a given product to vary according to its destination. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The international trade situation or the special requirements of certain markets may call for the refund on a given product to vary according to its destination.

| (7) | Tomatoes, oranges, table grapes, apples and peaches of classes Extra, I and II of the common quality standards can currently be exported in economically significant quantities. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Tomatoes, oranges, table grapes, apples and peaches of classes Extra, I and II of the common quality standards can currently be exported in economically significant quantities.

| (8) | In order to ensure the best use of available resources and in view of the structure of Community exports, it is appropriate to proceed by an open invitation to tender and to set the indicative refund amount and the scheduled quantities for the period concerned. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In order to ensure the best use of available resources and in view of the structure of Community exports, it is appropriate to proceed by an open invitation to tender and to set the indicative refund amount and the scheduled quantities for the period concerned.

| (9) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   An invitation to tender for the allocation of A3 export licences is hereby opened. The products concerned, the tender submission period, the indicative refund rates and the scheduled quantities are laid down in the Annex hereto.

2.   The licences issued in respect of food aid as referred to in Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (4) shall not count against the eligible quantities in the Annex hereto.

3.   Notwithstanding Article 5(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001, the term of validity of the A3 licences shall be three months.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 July 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 June 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1. Regulation, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 558/2005 (OJ L 94, 13.4.2005, p. 22).

3

(4)  
  OJ L 152, 24.6.2000, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1741/2004 (OJ L 311, 8.10.2004, p. 17).

4

---

ANNEX

Opening an invitation to tender for the allocation of A3 export licences for fruit and vegetables (tomatoes, oranges, table grapes, apples and peaches)

Tender submission period: 4 to 5 July 2005.

| Product code (1) | Destination (2) | Indicative refund amount
  (EUR/t net) | Scheduled quantity
  (t) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0702 00 00 9100 | F08 | 45 | 3 747 |
| 0805 10 20 9100 | A00 | 48 | 1 229 |
| 0806 10 10 9100 | A00 | 35 | 13 255 |
| 0808 10 80 9100 | F04 , F09 | 46 | 38 466 |
| 0809 30 10 9100
  0809 30 90 9100 | F03 | 18 | 19 415 |

Product code (1)

Destination (2)

Indicative refund amount

(EUR/t net)

Scheduled quantity

(t)

0702 00 00 9100

F08

45

3 747

0805 10 20 9100

A00

48

1 229

0806 10 10 9100

A00

35

13 255

0808 10 80 9100

F04 , F09

46

38 466

0809 30 10 9100

0809 30 90 9100

F03

18

19 415

---

(1)  The product codes are defined in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1).

(2)  The ‘
  A
  ’ series destination codes are defined in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87. The numeric destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). The other destinations are defined as follows:

| F03 | All destinations except Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |
| F04 | Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica. |
| F08 | All destinations except Bulgaria. |
| F09 | The following destinations:






  — | Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Faeroe Islands, Romania, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al Qalwain, Ras al Khaimah and Fujairah), Kuwait, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Panama, Ecuador and Colombia, |

F03

All destinations except Switzerland.

F04

Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Japan, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica.

F08

All destinations except Bulgaria.

F09

The following destinations:

—

Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Faeroe Islands, Romania, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al Qalwain, Ras al Khaimah and Fujairah), Kuwait, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Panama, Ecuador and Colombia,

| — | African countries and territories except South Africa, |
| --- | --- |

—

African countries and territories except South Africa,

| — | destinations referred to in Article 36 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 (OJ L 102, 17.4.1999, p. 11). |
| --- | --- |

—

destinations referred to in Article 36 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 (OJ L 102, 17.4.1999, p. 11).

---

II Acts whose publication is not obligatory

Commission

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 166/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 166/8

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 27 November 2002

relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC Treaty against BPB PLC, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV

(Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard)

(notified under document number C(2002) 4570)

(Only the English, French, German and Dutch versions are authentic)

(2005/471/EC)

On 27 November 2002, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) replacing Article 21 of Regulation No 17 (2), 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 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’s website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html).

1

2

I.   SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

1.   Addressees

| (1) | The following undertakings are the addressees of this Decision relating to the infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty:






  — | BPB plc (hereinafter: BPB), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

The following undertakings are the addressees of this Decision relating to the infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty:

—

BPB plc (hereinafter: BPB),

| — | Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG (hereinafter: Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke), |
| --- | --- |

—

Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG (hereinafter: Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke),

| — | Société Lafarge SA (hereinafter: Lafarge), |
| --- | --- |

—

Société Lafarge SA (hereinafter: Lafarge),

| — | Gyproc Benelux NV (hereinafter: Gyproc). |
| --- | --- |

—

Gyproc Benelux NV (hereinafter: Gyproc).

2.   Nature of the infringement

| (2) | BPB, Knauf (3), Lafarge and Gyproc entered into and participated without interruption in a complex and continuing agreement contrary to Article 81(1) of the Treaty which was manifested in the following conduct constituting agreements or concerted practices:






  — | the representatives of BPB and Knauf met in London in 1992 and expressed the common desire to stabilise the markets in Germany (hereinafter: German market), the United Kingdom (hereinafter: UK market), France (hereinafter: French market) and the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (hereinafter: Benelux market), |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

BPB, Knauf (3), Lafarge and Gyproc entered into and participated without interruption in a complex and continuing agreement contrary to Article 81(1) of the Treaty which was manifested in the following conduct constituting agreements or concerted practices:

3

—

the representatives of BPB and Knauf met in London in 1992 and expressed the common desire to stabilise the markets in Germany (hereinafter: German market), the United Kingdom (hereinafter: UK market), France (hereinafter: French market) and the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg (hereinafter: Benelux market),

| — | the representatives of BPB and Knauf established, as from 1992, information exchange arrangements, to which Lafarge and subsequently Gyproc acceded, relating to their sales volumes on the German, French, UK and Benelux plasterboard markets, |
| --- | --- |

—

the representatives of BPB and Knauf established, as from 1992, information exchange arrangements, to which Lafarge and subsequently Gyproc acceded, relating to their sales volumes on the German, French, UK and Benelux plasterboard markets,

| — | the representatives of BPB, Knauf and Lafarge exchanged information, on various occasions, prior to price increases on the UK market, |
| --- | --- |

—

the representatives of BPB, Knauf and Lafarge exchanged information, on various occasions, prior to price increases on the UK market,

| — | in view of particular developments on the German market, the representatives of BPB, Knauf, Lafarge and Gyproc met at Versailles in 1996, Brussels in 1997 and The Hague in 1998 with a view to sharing out or at least stabilising the German market, |
| --- | --- |

—

in view of particular developments on the German market, the representatives of BPB, Knauf, Lafarge and Gyproc met at Versailles in 1996, Brussels in 1997 and The Hague in 1998 with a view to sharing out or at least stabilising the German market,

| — | the representatives of BPB, Knauf, Lafarge and Gyproc exchanged information on various occasions and concerted their action on the application of price increases on the German market between 1996 and 1998. |
| --- | --- |

—

the representatives of BPB, Knauf, Lafarge and Gyproc exchanged information on various occasions and concerted their action on the application of price increases on the German market between 1996 and 1998.

3.   Duration

| (3) | The undertakings concerned participated in the infringements for the following periods:






  — | BPB: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(3)

The undertakings concerned participated in the infringements for the following periods:

—

BPB: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998,

| — | Knauf: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998, |
| --- | --- |

—

Knauf: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998,

| — | Lafarge: from 31 August 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998, |
| --- | --- |

—

Lafarge: from 31 August 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998,

| — | Gyproc: from 6 June 1996, at the latest, to 25 November 1998. |
| --- | --- |

—

Gyproc: from 6 June 1996, at the latest, to 25 November 1998.

4.   Procedural steps

| (4) | On the basis of information received, the Commission carried out inspections pursuant to Commission Decisions under Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 at the premises of several undertakings between November 1998 and July 1999. Following these inspections, the Commission sent requests for information to certain undertakings in January, July and September 1999 and in March 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On the basis of information received, the Commission carried out inspections pursuant to Commission Decisions under Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 at the premises of several undertakings between November 1998 and July 1999. Following these inspections, the Commission sent requests for information to certain undertakings in January, July and September 1999 and in March 2000.

| (5) | On 18 April 2001, the Commission initiated proceedings in this case and adopted a statement of objections against five undertakings, namely: BPB, Knauf, Lafarge, Gyproc and Etex SA. All the parties to which the statement of objections had been addressed submitted written comments in response to the objections raised by the Commission. On 17 July 2001, a hearing took place in which all of the undertakings participated. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 18 April 2001, the Commission initiated proceedings in this case and adopted a statement of objections against five undertakings, namely: BPB, Knauf, Lafarge, Gyproc and Etex SA. All the parties to which the statement of objections had been addressed submitted written comments in response to the objections raised by the Commission. On 17 July 2001, a hearing took place in which all of the undertakings participated.

| (6) | The Commission considers that the evidence in its possession is insufficient to establish Etex SA’s involvement in the single, complex and continuous infringement. Etex is therefore not an addressee of this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Commission considers that the evidence in its possession is insufficient to establish Etex SA’s involvement in the single, complex and continuous infringement. Etex is therefore not an addressee of this Decision.

5.   Product and market

| (7) | The product which is concerned in the instant case is plasterboard. This is a manufactured product used as a prefabricated construction material and consisting of a sheet of gypsum plaster sandwiched between two sheets of paper or some other material. Plasterboard is cut in various sizes and thicknesses and is typically used as an internal lining for walls, to form internal partitions inside buildings, as a roof lining and as a ceiling material for residential, commercial and administrative premises. Plasterboard is an attractive product for the building industry by virtue of its stability, durability, ease of application, fire resistance and low cost. Plasterboard is also an attractive product for consumers. It is largely used in the construction of modern homes and for DIY. Plasterboard is a well-known product and the firms concerned are house-hold names in several Member States (one talks of buying ‘gyproc’ in Belgium, ‘placoplâtre’ in France, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The product which is concerned in the instant case is plasterboard. This is a manufactured product used as a prefabricated construction material and consisting of a sheet of gypsum plaster sandwiched between two sheets of paper or some other material. Plasterboard is cut in various sizes and thicknesses and is typically used as an internal lining for walls, to form internal partitions inside buildings, as a roof lining and as a ceiling material for residential, commercial and administrative premises. Plasterboard is an attractive product for the building industry by virtue of its stability, durability, ease of application, fire resistance and low cost. Plasterboard is also an attractive product for consumers. It is largely used in the construction of modern homes and for DIY. Plasterboard is a well-known product and the firms concerned are house-hold names in several Member States (one talks of buying ‘gyproc’ in Belgium, ‘placoplâtre’ in France, etc.).

| (8) | The annual value of sales on the Benelux, French, German and UK markets covered by the present Decision was some ECU 1 210 million in 1997 and 1998 for a sales volume of some 692 million square metres in 1997 and some 710 million square meters in 1998. The undertakings together accounted for nearly all plasterboard sales on the four markets concerned. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The annual value of sales on the Benelux, French, German and UK markets covered by the present Decision was some ECU 1 210 million in 1997 and 1998 for a sales volume of some 692 million square metres in 1997 and some 710 million square meters in 1998. The undertakings together accounted for nearly all plasterboard sales on the four markets concerned.

II.   FINES

1.   Basic amount

| (9) | In fixing the amount of any fine the Commission must have regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular the gravity and duration of the infringement, which are the two criteria referred to expressly in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In fixing the amount of any fine the Commission must have regard to all relevant circumstances and in particular the gravity and duration of the infringement, which are the two criteria referred to expressly in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17.

(a)   Gravity

| (10) | Having regard to the nature of the conduct in question, its practical impact on the plasterboard market and the fact that it covered the four principal markets at the heart of the European Community, the Commission considers that the addressees of the instant Decision committed a very serious infringement of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Having regard to the nature of the conduct in question, its practical impact on the plasterboard market and the fact that it covered the four principal markets at the heart of the European Community, the Commission considers that the addressees of the instant Decision committed a very serious infringement of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

(b)   Differential treatment

| (11) | Within the category of very serious infringements, the Commission may apply differential treatment to the undertakings concerned in order to take account of their effective economic capacity to cause significant damage to competition and in order to set the fine at a level which ensures it has sufficient deterrent effect. This is particularly necessary where, as in the present case, there is considerable disparity between the sizes of the undertakings which participated in the infringement. To this end the Decision divides the companies into three groups on the basis of their respective market shares based on turnover from sales of the product on the four markets concerned in the last complete year of the infringement, i.e. 1997: the first group comprises BPB with a market share of some [40-45] %; the second group comprises Knauf and Lafarge with market shares of some [25-30] % and [20-25] % respectively; and the third group comprises Gyproc with a market share of some [7-10] %. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Within the category of very serious infringements, the Commission may apply differential treatment to the undertakings concerned in order to take account of their effective economic capacity to cause significant damage to competition and in order to set the fine at a level which ensures it has sufficient deterrent effect. This is particularly necessary where, as in the present case, there is considerable disparity between the sizes of the undertakings which participated in the infringement. To this end the Decision divides the companies into three groups on the basis of their respective market shares based on turnover from sales of the product on the four markets concerned in the last complete year of the infringement, i.e. 1997: the first group comprises BPB with a market share of some [40-45] %; the second group comprises Knauf and Lafarge with market shares of some [25-30] % and [20-25] % respectively; and the third group comprises Gyproc with a market share of some [7-10] %.

| (12) | In order to ensure that the fines imposed have a sufficient deterrent effect, and in view of its large size and world-wide resources, the Decision applies a 100 % multiplier to the starting amount of the fine set for Lafarge. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In order to ensure that the fines imposed have a sufficient deterrent effect, and in view of its large size and world-wide resources, the Decision applies a 100 % multiplier to the starting amount of the fine set for Lafarge.

(c)   Duration

| (13) | Knauf and BPB infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty from, at the latest, 31 March 1992 to 25 November 1998. Lafarge committed the same infringement from, at the latest, 31 August 1992 to 25 November 1998. Gyproc actively participated in the infringement from, at the latest, 6 June 1996 to 25 November 1998. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Knauf and BPB infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty from, at the latest, 31 March 1992 to 25 November 1998. Lafarge committed the same infringement from, at the latest, 31 August 1992 to 25 November 1998. Gyproc actively participated in the infringement from, at the latest, 6 June 1996 to 25 November 1998.

| (14) | In the case of Knauf, BPB and Lafarge the infringement was thus of long duration (more than five years) and in the case of Gyproc, the infringement was of medium duration (between one and five years). The starting amount of the fine determined for gravity is therefore increased by 65 % for BPB and Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke, by 60 % for Lafarge and by 20 % for Gyproc. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In the case of Knauf, BPB and Lafarge the infringement was thus of long duration (more than five years) and in the case of Gyproc, the infringement was of medium duration (between one and five years). The starting amount of the fine determined for gravity is therefore increased by 65 % for BPB and Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke, by 60 % for Lafarge and by 20 % for Gyproc.

2.   Aggravating circumstances

| (15) | The Commission has previously adopted measures imposing fines on BPB De Eendracht NV (4) (a member of the BPB group, addressee of the draft Decision) for having taken part in an illegal agreement in the cartonboard sector and on Lafarge SA (then known as Lafarge Coppée SA) for having taken part in an illegal agreement in the cement sector (5). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Commission has previously adopted measures imposing fines on BPB De Eendracht NV (4) (a member of the BPB group, addressee of the draft Decision) for having taken part in an illegal agreement in the cartonboard sector and on Lafarge SA (then known as Lafarge Coppée SA) for having taken part in an illegal agreement in the cement sector (5).

4

5

| (16) | The facts as set out in the Decision establish that BPB and Lafarge actively continued to participate in a cartel in the plasterboard sector after the abovementioned Decisions were notified to them. The fact that these undertakings have repeated the same kind of behaviour in a different sector from the one concerned by the first Decisions, shows that sanctions imposed in the first case did not lead the undertakings to modify their conduct and thus constitutes an aggravating circumstance. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The facts as set out in the Decision establish that BPB and Lafarge actively continued to participate in a cartel in the plasterboard sector after the abovementioned Decisions were notified to them. The fact that these undertakings have repeated the same kind of behaviour in a different sector from the one concerned by the first Decisions, shows that sanctions imposed in the first case did not lead the undertakings to modify their conduct and thus constitutes an aggravating circumstance.

| (17) | In the case of BPB, the fact that Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 was addressed to a subsidiary of BPB, BPB De Eendracht NV, does not prevent the Commission from treating it as an aggravating circumstance in the instant case. Indeed, the Commission considers that since BPB De Eendracht NV was a subsidiary of BPB PLC at the time of the earlier Decision, these in fact form part of one and the same undertaking, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of an undertaking which is censured by the Commission both to bring to an end the anti-competitive conduct identified in the particular Decision which is addressed to it and to bring its commercial policy throughout the Community into line with that Decision. BPB did not do this, indeed quite the opposite, as set out in the Decision (6). The mere fact that an undertaking has already been the subject of an infringement Decision and that, in spite of this finding and of the fine imposed, it has continued to engage in another analogous infringement in breach of the same provision of the Treaty is sufficient to constitute recidivism. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

In the case of BPB, the fact that Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 was addressed to a subsidiary of BPB, BPB De Eendracht NV, does not prevent the Commission from treating it as an aggravating circumstance in the instant case. Indeed, the Commission considers that since BPB De Eendracht NV was a subsidiary of BPB PLC at the time of the earlier Decision, these in fact form part of one and the same undertaking, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of an undertaking which is censured by the Commission both to bring to an end the anti-competitive conduct identified in the particular Decision which is addressed to it and to bring its commercial policy throughout the Community into line with that Decision. BPB did not do this, indeed quite the opposite, as set out in the Decision (6). The mere fact that an undertaking has already been the subject of an infringement Decision and that, in spite of this finding and of the fine imposed, it has continued to engage in another analogous infringement in breach of the same provision of the Treaty is sufficient to constitute recidivism.

6

| (18) | With regard to the above aggravating factors, an increase of 50 % of the basic amount of the fine for BPB and Lafarge appears justified. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

With regard to the above aggravating factors, an increase of 50 % of the basic amount of the fine for BPB and Lafarge appears justified.

3.   Attenuating circumstances

| (19) | Whilst Gyproc may be held responsible for the infringement as a whole for the period during which it was a participant, that is from June 1996 to November 1998, the available evidence shows that Gyproc was in an objectively different situation from that of the other addressees of the Decision, such that the Commission recognises that Gyproc did not play an identical role in the agreement to that of the other undertakings. The distinguishing circumstances recognised by the Commission are the fact that: during a substantial period of its involvement in the agreement, Gyproc appears to have had difficulties in preventing BPB from obtaining and transmitting information relating to it, as a result of BPB’s being represented on Gyproc’s board of directors; Gyproc was a constant destabilising element and contributed to the limitation of the effects of the agreement on the German market; and Gyproc was absent from the UK market where the agreement most frequently manifested itself. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Whilst Gyproc may be held responsible for the infringement as a whole for the period during which it was a participant, that is from June 1996 to November 1998, the available evidence shows that Gyproc was in an objectively different situation from that of the other addressees of the Decision, such that the Commission recognises that Gyproc did not play an identical role in the agreement to that of the other undertakings. The distinguishing circumstances recognised by the Commission are the fact that: during a substantial period of its involvement in the agreement, Gyproc appears to have had difficulties in preventing BPB from obtaining and transmitting information relating to it, as a result of BPB’s being represented on Gyproc’s board of directors; Gyproc was a constant destabilising element and contributed to the limitation of the effects of the agreement on the German market; and Gyproc was absent from the UK market where the agreement most frequently manifested itself.

| (20) | Gyproc will therefore be granted a 25 % reduction of the basic amount of the fine on the grounds of attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Gyproc will therefore be granted a 25 % reduction of the basic amount of the fine on the grounds of attenuating circumstances.

4.   Application of the Commission Notice on the Non-imposition or Reduction of Fines in Cartel Cases (the Leniency Notice): significant reduction in the amount of the fine

| (21) | Before the Commission adopted its statement of objections, BPB and Gyproc provided it with information and/or documents. The extent and quality of the co-operation afforded by these undertakings were nevertheless different. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Before the Commission adopted its statement of objections, BPB and Gyproc provided it with information and/or documents. The extent and quality of the co-operation afforded by these undertakings were nevertheless different.

| (22) | BPB was the first member of the agreement, following a request for information from the Commission, to provide additional evidence, complementary to that uncovered during the inspections and confirming the existence of the agreement, as set out above. This evidence comprised detailed information on the meetings in question, notably the meeting in London and on the exchanges of information in respect of the principal European markets and, in particular, the UK market. In addition, BPB also recognised in part the facts which were described in the statement of objections. BPB nevertheless contested the infringing nature of some of the facts described in the statement of objections, which are retained in the Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

BPB was the first member of the agreement, following a request for information from the Commission, to provide additional evidence, complementary to that uncovered during the inspections and confirming the existence of the agreement, as set out above. This evidence comprised detailed information on the meetings in question, notably the meeting in London and on the exchanges of information in respect of the principal European markets and, in particular, the UK market. In addition, BPB also recognised in part the facts which were described in the statement of objections. BPB nevertheless contested the infringing nature of some of the facts described in the statement of objections, which are retained in the Decision.

| (23) | Gyproc also provided evidence which contributed to the establishment of the infringement. Following a request for information from the Commission, this undertaking provided information concerning the cartel meetings, specifying the periods during which the meetings took place in various Member States of the Community and the names of the participating undertakings. In the course of a meeting with the Commission services requested by Gyproc, a representative of the undertaking volunteered oral explanations regarding manuscript notes. In addition, Gyproc of its own accord provided the Commission with manuscript notes of which the Commission had not become aware during the inspection. These notes in particular contained information relating to the exchange of information regarding sales volumes during the meeting in Versailles. Gyproc does not contest the facts or their qualification as infringements of Community competition law. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Gyproc also provided evidence which contributed to the establishment of the infringement. Following a request for information from the Commission, this undertaking provided information concerning the cartel meetings, specifying the periods during which the meetings took place in various Member States of the Community and the names of the participating undertakings. In the course of a meeting with the Commission services requested by Gyproc, a representative of the undertaking volunteered oral explanations regarding manuscript notes. In addition, Gyproc of its own accord provided the Commission with manuscript notes of which the Commission had not become aware during the inspection. These notes in particular contained information relating to the exchange of information regarding sales volumes during the meeting in Versailles. Gyproc does not contest the facts or their qualification as infringements of Community competition law.

| (24) | In the above circumstances, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to grant a 30 % reduction in the amount of the fine for BPB and a 40 % reduction in the amount of the fine for Gyproc. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

In the above circumstances, the Commission considers that it is appropriate to grant a 30 % reduction in the amount of the fine for BPB and a 40 % reduction in the amount of the fine for Gyproc.

5.   Final amount of fines imposed in this proceeding

| (25) | By way of conclusion, the amounts of the fines to be imposed in accordance with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 17 should be set as follows:








  — | BPB | : | EUR 138,6 million, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke | : | EUR 85,8 million, |
| — | Lafarge | : | EUR 249,6 million, |
| — | Gyproc | : | EUR 4,32 million. |

(25)

By way of conclusion, the amounts of the fines to be imposed in accordance with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 17 should be set as follows:

—

BPB

:

EUR 138,6 million,

—

Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke

:

EUR 85,8 million,

—

Lafarge

:

EUR 249,6 million,

—

Gyproc

:

EUR 4,32 million.

III.   DECISION

| (26) | BPB plc, the Knauf Group, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV have infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty by participating in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the plasterboard business. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

BPB plc, the Knauf Group, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV have infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty by participating in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the plasterboard business.

| (27) | The duration of the infringement was as follows:






  (a) | BPB plc: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(27)

The duration of the infringement was as follows:

(a)

BPB plc: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998;

| (b) | Knauf: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Knauf: from 31 March 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998;

| (c) | Société Lafarge SA: from 31 August 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Société Lafarge SA: from 31 August 1992, at the latest, to 25 November 1998;

| (d) | Gyproc Benelux NV: from 6 June 1996, at the latest, to 25 November 1998. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Gyproc Benelux NV: from 6 June 1996, at the latest, to 25 November 1998.

| (28) | The undertakings referred to in Article 1 shall put an end to the infringement referred to in that Article, if they have not already done so. In their plasterboard business they shall refrain from any agreement or concerted practice that might have an identical or similar object or effect to the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The undertakings referred to in Article 1 shall put an end to the infringement referred to in that Article, if they have not already done so. In their plasterboard business they shall refrain from any agreement or concerted practice that might have an identical or similar object or effect to the infringement.

| (29) | In respect of the infringement referred to in Article 1, the following fines are imposed on the following undertakings:








  — | BPB plc | : | EUR 138,6 million, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG | : | EUR 85,8 million, |
| — | Société Lafarge SA | : | EUR 249,6 million, |
| — | Gyproc Benelux NV | : | EUR 4,32 million. |

(29)

In respect of the infringement referred to in Article 1, the following fines are imposed on the following undertakings:

—

BPB plc

:

EUR 138,6 million,

—

Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG

:

EUR 85,8 million,

—

Société Lafarge SA

:

EUR 249,6 million,

—

Gyproc Benelux NV

:

EUR 4,32 million.

---

(1)  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 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62) Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

2

(3)  
  ‘Knauf’ means all the companies in the Knauf group, see section 1.3.3.2.

3

(4)  Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 (Case IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) (OJ L 243,19.9.1994, p. 1), relating to a proceeding under Article 85 (now 81) of the EC Treaty imposed a fine of ECU 1 750 000. On 14 May 1998, in Case T-311/94, the Court of First Instance reduced the fine to ECU 750 000 (ECR 1998, II-1129).

4

(5)  Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994, Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement, (OJ L 343, 30.12.1994, p. 1), relating to a procedure under Article 85 (now 81) of the EC Treaty imposed a fine of ECU 22 872 000. On 15 March 2000, in Case T 43/95, the Court of First Instance reduced the fine to EUR 14 248 000 (ECR 2000, II-491).

5

(6)  See also Commission Decision 2002/405/EC of 20 June 2001 relating to a procedure applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty, Michelin (OJ L 143, 31.5.2002, p. 1, recitals 361 to 363).

6

---

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 166/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 166/12

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 24 June 2005

concerning the financing of studies, impact assessments and evaluations covering the areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics

(2005/472/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field, the Community is to undertake or assist the Member States in undertaking the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Community veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field, the Community is to undertake or assist the Member States in undertaking the technical and scientific measures necessary for the development of Community veterinary legislation and for the development of veterinary education or training.

| (2) | Studies, impact assessments as well as systematic and timely evaluations of its expenditure programmes are an established priority for the European Commission (EC), as a means of accounting for the management of allocated funds and as a way of promoting a lesson-learning culture throughout the organisation, particularly in a context of increased focus on results-based management. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Studies, impact assessments as well as systematic and timely evaluations of its expenditure programmes are an established priority for the European Commission (EC), as a means of accounting for the management of allocated funds and as a way of promoting a lesson-learning culture throughout the organisation, particularly in a context of increased focus on results-based management.

| (3) | In order to carry out these tasks, a call for tender for an evaluation framework contract covering the policy areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics has been launched following an open procedure during the last quarter 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In order to carry out these tasks, a call for tender for an evaluation framework contract covering the policy areas of food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics has been launched following an open procedure during the last quarter 2004.

| (4) | This framework contract is expected to provide high quality, timely and relevant information which will serve as a basis for Community decision making. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

This framework contract is expected to provide high quality, timely and relevant information which will serve as a basis for Community decision making.

| (5) | All individual tasks shall be subject to specific agreements. These agreements shall be signed between the Commission and the selected contractor as defined in the framework contract. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

All individual tasks shall be subject to specific agreements. These agreements shall be signed between the Commission and the selected contractor as defined in the framework contract.

| (6) | The measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The measure provided for in this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The actions described in the Annex to this Decision are approved for the purpose of their financing.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2005.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. Decision as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

1

---

ANNEX

Domain: Food safety, animal health and welfare and zootechnics.

Legal basis: Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field.

Assignments:

| — | various types of studies and other services supporting the design and preparation of Commission proposals, |
| --- | --- |

—

various types of studies and other services supporting the design and preparation of Commission proposals,

| — | ex ante evaluations/ impact assessments, |
| --- | --- |

—

ex ante evaluations/ impact assessments,

| — | interim and ex-post evaluations. |
| --- | --- |

—

interim and ex-post evaluations.

The evaluation of Community Animal Health Policy (CAHP) 1995 to 2004 and possible policy options for the future (including a risk financing model for livestock epidemics) has been targeted as a priority in 2005.

Appropriation 2005:

| — | 17 04 02 — Other measures in the veterinary, animal welfare and public-health field: EUR 500 000, |
| --- | --- |

—

17 04 02 — Other measures in the veterinary, animal welfare and public-health field: EUR 500 000,

| — | 17 01 04 04 — Pilot study: risk financing model for livestock epidemics — Expenditure on administrative management: EUR 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

17 01 04 04 — Pilot study: risk financing model for livestock epidemics — Expenditure on administrative management: EUR 500 000.

Budget: maximum of EUR 1 000 000 for the first year of the framework contract.

Number of specific actions envisaged: approximately six.

All actions shall be governed by common public procurement rules: in casu use of existing framework contract.

---

Corrigenda

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 166/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 166/14

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 209/2003 of 3 February 2003 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards Community tariff quotas for certain agricultural products originating in Lebanon

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 28 of 4 February 2003
  )

On page 31, in the second column, against order number 09.1178:

for:

CN code ‘
  0711 20 11
  ’,

read:

CN code ‘
  0711 20 10
  ’.

---