# Official Journal C 67/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 67 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5825 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 67

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5825 February 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 067/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7500 — Bain Capital/Ibstock Group) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2015/C 067/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7509 — OBI/Brico Business Cooperation) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 067/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7500 — Bain Capital/Ibstock Group) (
  1
  )

1

1

2015/C 067/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7509 — OBI/Brico Business Cooperation) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 067/03 | Notice for the attention of certain persons and the entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran | 2 |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 067/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2015/C 067/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 28 August 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation/Equity Interests held by Rockwood Holdings — Rapporteur: Sweden | 4 |
| 2015/C 067/06 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Huntsman Corporation/Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings (Case M.7061) | 5 |
| 2015/C 067/07 | Summary of Commission Decision of 10 September 2014 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation/Equity Interests held by Rockwood Holdings) (notified under document number C(2014) 6319)
   (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2015/C 067/08 | Special Report No 24/2014 Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasters well managed? | 14 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2015/C 067/03

Notice for the attention of certain persons and the entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran

2

European Commission

2015/C 067/04

Euro exchange rates

3

2015/C 067/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 28 August 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation/Equity Interests held by Rockwood Holdings — Rapporteur: Sweden

4

2015/C 067/06

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Huntsman Corporation/Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings (Case M.7061)

5

2015/C 067/07

Summary of Commission Decision of 10 September 2014 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation/Equity Interests held by Rockwood Holdings) (notified under document number C(2014) 6319)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document number C(2014) 6319)

1

7

Court of Auditors

2015/C 067/08

Special Report No 24/2014 Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasters well managed?

14

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 067/09 | Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China and extended to Vietnam and Lao People’s Democratic Republic | 15 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 067/10 | Notice to producers and importers of hydrofluorocarbons and to new undertakings intending to place hydrofluorocarbons in bulk on the market in the European Union in 2016 | 25 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 067/09

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China and extended to Vietnam and Lao People’s Democratic Republic

15

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 067/10

Notice to producers and importers of hydrofluorocarbons and to new undertakings intending to place hydrofluorocarbons in bulk on the market in the European Union in 2016

25

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2015/C 067/11 | Corrigendum to the single document of the application for registration of the name Oli de l’Empordà/Aceite de L’Empordà as protected designation of origin published pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ C 358, 10.10.2014 ) | 27 |

Corrigenda

2015/C 067/11

Corrigendum to the single document of the application for registration of the name Oli de l’Empordà/Aceite de L’Empordà as protected designation of origin published pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ C 358, 10.10.2014 )

27

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7500 — Bain Capital/Ibstock Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 67/01)

On 4 February 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7500. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7500. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7509 — OBI/Brico Business Cooperation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 67/02)

On 11 February 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7509. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7509. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/2

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons and the entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran

(2015/C 67/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. RADAN Ahmad-Reza (No. 10), Mr. TAEB Hossein (No. 13), Mr. SHARIATI Seyeed Hassan (No. 14), Mr. DORRI-NADJAFABADI Ghorban-Ali (No. 15), Mr. HADDAD Hassan (No. 16), Mr. HEYDARIFAR Ali-Akbar (No. 18), Mr. MOGHISSEH Mohammad (No. 20), Mr. MOHSENI-EJEI Gholam-Hossein (No. 21), Mr. MORTAZAVI Said (No. 22), Mr. PIR-ABASSI Abbas (No. 23), Mr. YASAGHI Ali-Akbar (No. 28), Mr. ESMAILI Gholam-Hossein (No. 30), Mr. AKBARSHAHI Ali-Reza (No. 34), Mr. AVAEE Seyyed Ali-Reza (No. 36), Mr. BANESHI Jaber (No. 37), Mr. HABIBI Mohammad Reza (No. 40), Mr. HEJAZI Mohammad (No. 41), Mr. KHALILOLLAHI Moussa (No. 47), Mr. MAHSOULI Sadeq (No. 48), Mr. MALEKI Mojtaba (No. 49), Mr. KHODAEI SOURI Hojatollah (No. 52), Mr. TALA Hossein (No. 53), Mr. TAMADDON Morteza (No. 54), Mr. HAJMOHAM-MADI Aziz (No. 57), Mr. BAKHTIARI Seyyed Morteza (No. 59), Mr. HOSSEINI Dr Mohammad (No. 60), Mr. MOSLEHI Heydar (No. 61), Mr. KAZEMI Toraj (No. 64), Mr. LARIJANI Sadeq (No. 65), Mr. MIRHEJAZI Ali (No. 66), Mr. RAMIN Mohammad-Ali (No. 68), Mr. MORTAZAVI Seyyed Solat (No. 69), Mr. RAMEZANI Gholamhosein (No. 75), Mr. JAFARI Reza (No. 77), Mr. RESHTE-AHMADI Bahram (No. 78), Mr. RASHIDI AGHDAM, Ali Ashraf (No. 79), Mr. KIASATI Morteza (No. 80), Mr. MOUSSAVI, Seyed Mohammad Bagher (No. 81), Mr. JAFARI, Asadollah (No. 83), Mr. HAMLBAR, Rahim (No. 85), Mr. MUSAVI-TABAR, Seyyed Reza (No. 86) and Center to Investigate Organized Crime (No. 1), persons and the entity appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 359/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Iran.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entity with new statements of reasons. Those persons and entity are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 6 March 2015, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

---

European Commission

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 February 2015

(2015/C 67/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1328 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,36 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4595 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73440 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5199 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0755 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6250 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,487 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,00 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1662 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4435 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8082 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4609 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4322 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7876 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5225 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5420 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 261,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,1490 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0842 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,7020 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 635,14 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1257 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,137 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,4174 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,884 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2518 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,1143 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,4630 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1328

JPY

Japanese yen

135,36

DKK

Danish krone

7,4595

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73440

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5199

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0755

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6250

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,487

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,00

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1662

RON

Romanian leu

4,4435

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8082

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4609

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4322

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7876

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5225

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5420

KRW

South Korean won

1 261,64

ZAR

South African rand

13,1490

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0842

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,7020

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 635,14

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1257

PHP

Philippine peso

50,137

RUB

Russian rouble

71,4174

THB

Thai baht

36,884

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2518

MXN

Mexican peso

17,1143

INR

Indian rupee

70,4630

---

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

---

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 28 August 2014 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation/Equity Interests held by Rockwood Holdings

Rapporteur: Sweden

(2015/C 67/05)

Operation

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Notified Transaction constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (‘the Merger Regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Notified Transaction constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (‘the Merger Regulation’).

Union Dimension

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Notified Transaction has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Notified Transaction has a Union dimension pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

Product and Geographic Market

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product and geographic markets as stated in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product and geographic markets as stated in the draft decision.

| 4. | In particular The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusions that:






  4.1. | TiO2 for printing ink applications constitutes a separate relevant product market; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

In particular The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusions that:

4.1.

TiO2 for printing ink applications constitutes a separate relevant product market;

| 4.2. | the relevant geographic market for TiO2 for printing ink applications should be defined as EEA-wide. |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

the relevant geographic market for TiO2 for printing ink applications should be defined as EEA-wide.

Competitive Assessment

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified transaction is unlikely to give rise to horizontal effects that would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition in the following affected markets: (i) TiO2 for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food applications; (ii) TiO2 for fibres applications; (iii) TiO2 for mass applications (coatings, plastics, paper); (iv) ferrous sulphate and filter salts (by-products of the sulphate-based TiO2 production). |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified transaction is unlikely to give rise to horizontal effects that would lead to a significant impediment of effective competition in the following affected markets: (i) TiO2 for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food applications; (ii) TiO2 for fibres applications; (iii) TiO2 for mass applications (coatings, plastics, paper); (iv) ferrous sulphate and filter salts (by-products of the sulphate-based TiO2 production).

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified transaction, as originally proposed by the notifying party, is likely to give rise to non-coordinated horizontal effects leading to significant impediment of effective competition on the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified transaction, as originally proposed by the notifying party, is likely to give rise to non-coordinated horizontal effects leading to significant impediment of effective competition on the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the Commitments offered by the notifying party on 28 July 2014 remove the competition concerns identified by the Commission in relation to the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the Commitments offered by the notifying party on 28 July 2014 remove the competition concerns identified by the Commission in relation to the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to the full compliance with the final commitments offered by the notifying party on 28 July 2014, the notified transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to the full compliance with the final commitments offered by the notifying party on 28 July 2014, the notified transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

Compatibility with Internal Market

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction must therefore be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction must therefore be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

---

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/5

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Huntsman Corporation/Equity interests held by Rockwood Holdings

(Case M.7061)

(2015/C 67/06)

| 1. | On 29 January 2014, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed transaction under which Huntsman International LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation (‘Huntsman’) is to acquire the equity interests of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (‘Rockwood’) in a number of businesses (2) (‘the Proposed Transaction’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 29 January 2014, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed transaction under which Huntsman International LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation (‘Huntsman’) is to acquire the equity interests of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (‘Rockwood’) in a number of businesses (2) (‘the Proposed Transaction’).

| 2. | The Proposed Transaction constitutes a concentration with an EU dimension for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (3) (the ‘Merger Regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Proposed Transaction constitutes a concentration with an EU dimension for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (3) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

| 3. | On 5 March 2014, considering that the Proposed Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market, the Commission adopted a decision initiating proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. Huntsman submitted written comments on 19 March 2014. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On 5 March 2014, considering that the Proposed Transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market, the Commission adopted a decision initiating proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. Huntsman submitted written comments on 19 March 2014.

| 4. | On 21 March 2014, at Huntsman’s request and in accordance with Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation, the Commission extended by 20 working days the period for reviewing the Proposed Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

4.

On 21 March 2014, at Huntsman’s request and in accordance with Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation, the Commission extended by 20 working days the period for reviewing the Proposed Transaction.

| 5. | Pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Merger Regulation, this period was suspended as from 25 March 2014 (the deadline for responding to an initial request for information under Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation to which Huntsman did not provide a complete response). This suspension was lifted on 28 April 2014, following compliance by Huntsman with a decision of 16 April 2014 under Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation requesting the outstanding information. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Merger Regulation, this period was suspended as from 25 March 2014 (the deadline for responding to an initial request for information under Article 11(2) of the Merger Regulation to which Huntsman did not provide a complete response). This suspension was lifted on 28 April 2014, following compliance by Huntsman with a decision of 16 April 2014 under Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation requesting the outstanding information.

| 6. | On 8 July 2014, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘the SO’) addressed to Huntsman. In the SO, the Commission took the preliminary view that the Proposed Transaction is incompatible with the internal market and functioning of the European Economic Area Agreement (‘EEA Agreement’) since it is likely to lead, on the EEA market for titanium dioxide for printing ink applications, to a significant impediment of effective competition by creating a dominant position and eliminating competition between competitors holding large shares of a market characterised by high barriers to entry. |
| --- | --- |

6.

On 8 July 2014, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘the SO’) addressed to Huntsman. In the SO, the Commission took the preliminary view that the Proposed Transaction is incompatible with the internal market and functioning of the European Economic Area Agreement (‘EEA Agreement’) since it is likely to lead, on the EEA market for titanium dioxide for printing ink applications, to a significant impediment of effective competition by creating a dominant position and eliminating competition between competitors holding large shares of a market characterised by high barriers to entry.

| 7. | Pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (4), Rockwood was also informed of the objections addressed to Huntsman. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (4), Rockwood was also informed of the objections addressed to Huntsman.

| 8. | Huntsman submitted a written response to the SO on 23 July 2014, within the time period set by the Commission. Rockwood did not submit comments on the SO. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Huntsman submitted a written response to the SO on 23 July 2014, within the time period set by the Commission. Rockwood did not submit comments on the SO.

| 9. | Huntsman had the opportunity of obtaining access to the Commission’s file, notably via CD-ROM provided on 11 July 2014. I did not receive any requests in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Huntsman had the opportunity of obtaining access to the Commission’s file, notably via CD-ROM provided on 11 July 2014. I did not receive any requests in this regard.

| 10. | There were no applications to be heard as an interested third person in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

10.

There were no applications to be heard as an interested third person in the present proceedings.

| 11. | The involved parties did not request a formal oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The involved parties did not request a formal oral hearing.

| 12. | On 28 July 2014, Huntsman submitted a second revised set of commitments. These commitments addressed issues raised by the market testing of the proposed commitments it had offered on 28 March 2014 and 18 July 2014 with a view to allaying the competition concerns raised by the Proposed Transaction. |
| --- | --- |

12.

On 28 July 2014, Huntsman submitted a second revised set of commitments. These commitments addressed issues raised by the market testing of the proposed commitments it had offered on 28 March 2014 and 18 July 2014 with a view to allaying the competition concerns raised by the Proposed Transaction.

| 13. | The draft decision declares the Proposed Transaction, as modified by the commitments submitted by Huntsman on 28 July 2014, compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to conditions and obligations intended to ensure that Huntsman complies with these commitments. |
| --- | --- |

13.

The draft decision declares the Proposed Transaction, as modified by the commitments submitted by Huntsman on 28 July 2014, compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to conditions and obligations intended to ensure that Huntsman complies with these commitments.

| 14. | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. I conclude that it does. |
| --- | --- |

14.

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

| 15. | Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

15.

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

Brussels, 1 September 2014.

Joos STRAGIER

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Namely (i) Rockwood’s titanium dioxide pigments and functional additives businesses, which together operate under the name Sachtleben; (ii) Rockwood’s colour pigments business, timber treatment and wood protection chemicals business in North America, and water treatment business; and (iii) Gomet, a specialist provider of automotive spare parts developed for the automotive aftermarket.

2

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

3

(4)  OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

4

---

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/7

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 10 September 2014

declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement

(Case M.7061 — Huntsman Corporation/Equity Interests held by Rockwood Holdings)

(notified under document number C(2014) 6319)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 67/07)

On 10 September 2014 the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
   (1)
  , and in particular Article 8(2) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found, in the authentic language of the case on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html

I.   THE PARTIES

| (1) | Huntsman is a US company producing a diverse range of specialty and intermediate chemicals. Huntsman operates in five divisions: (i) Polyurethanes, which produce raw materials for the production of polyurethanes, thermoplastic polyurethanes and intermediate chemicals; (ii) Performance products, which produce various products, including amines, surfactants, carbonates, ethylene glycols, linear alkyl benzene, and maleic anhydride as well as internally used chemicals, e.g., ethylene oxide; (iii) Pigments, which produce TiO2; (iv) Advanced Materials, which produces epoxy resins and related chemicals as well as formulated systems based on both epoxy and non-epoxy chemistries; and (v) Textile Effects, which produces textile dyes and textile chemicals. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Huntsman is a US company producing a diverse range of specialty and intermediate chemicals. Huntsman operates in five divisions: (i) Polyurethanes, which produce raw materials for the production of polyurethanes, thermoplastic polyurethanes and intermediate chemicals; (ii) Performance products, which produce various products, including amines, surfactants, carbonates, ethylene glycols, linear alkyl benzene, and maleic anhydride as well as internally used chemicals, e.g., ethylene oxide; (iii) Pigments, which produce TiO2; (iv) Advanced Materials, which produces epoxy resins and related chemicals as well as formulated systems based on both epoxy and non-epoxy chemistries; and (v) Textile Effects, which produces textile dyes and textile chemicals.

| (2) | Rockwood is a US-based global developer, manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals and advanced materials used for industrial and commercial purposes. As of 2012, Rockwood's activities were focused on the following areas: lithium and surface treatment chemicals, TiO2 pigments, iron-oxide pigments, timber-treatment chemicals and clay-based additives. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Rockwood is a US-based global developer, manufacturer and marketer of specialty chemicals and advanced materials used for industrial and commercial purposes. As of 2012, Rockwood's activities were focused on the following areas: lithium and surface treatment chemicals, TiO2 pigments, iron-oxide pigments, timber-treatment chemicals and clay-based additives.

II.   THE OPERATION

| (3) | On 29 January 2014, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Huntsman International LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation (‘Huntsman’ or ‘the Notifying Party’, US) acquires a number of businesses from Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (‘Rockwood’, US), namely:






  — | Rockwood's titanium dioxide (‘TiO2’) pigments and functional additives businesses, which together operate under the name Sachtleben, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(3)

On 29 January 2014, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Huntsman International LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation (‘Huntsman’ or ‘the Notifying Party’, US) acquires a number of businesses from Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (‘Rockwood’, US), namely:

—

Rockwood's titanium dioxide (‘TiO2’) pigments and functional additives businesses, which together operate under the name Sachtleben,

| — | Rockwood's colour pigments business, timber treatment and wood protection chemicals business in North America, and water treatment business, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Rockwood's colour pigments business, timber treatment and wood protection chemicals business in North America, and water treatment business, and

| — | Gomet, a specialist provider of automotive spare parts developed for the automotive aftermarket. |
| --- | --- |

—

Gomet, a specialist provider of automotive spare parts developed for the automotive aftermarket.

| (4) | Huntsman and Rockwood are collectively referred to as the ‘Parties’. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Huntsman and Rockwood are collectively referred to as the ‘Parties’.

III.   SUMMARY

| (5) | Based on the results of the phase I market investigation, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the internal market in relation to the EEA markets for TiO2 (a) for printing ink applications; (b) for cosmetics, pharmaceutical and food applications; and (c) for fibres applications. On 5 March 2014, the Commission adopted a decision initiating the proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘Decision opening the proceedings’) and opened a phase II market investigation. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Based on the results of the phase I market investigation, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the internal market in relation to the EEA markets for TiO2 (a) for printing ink applications; (b) for cosmetics, pharmaceutical and food applications; and (c) for fibres applications. On 5 March 2014, the Commission adopted a decision initiating the proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘Decision opening the proceedings’) and opened a phase II market investigation.

| (6) | The results of the in-depth market investigation confirmed the competition concerns raised in the Decision opening the proceedings with respect to one market, namely the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. On 8 July 2014, the Commission addressed a Statement of Objections to the Notifying Party spelling out its concerns in relation to the unilateral effects likely to arise on the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The results of the in-depth market investigation confirmed the competition concerns raised in the Decision opening the proceedings with respect to one market, namely the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. On 8 July 2014, the Commission addressed a Statement of Objections to the Notifying Party spelling out its concerns in relation to the unilateral effects likely to arise on the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

| (7) | On 18 July 2014, the Notifying Party submitted a remedy proposal pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation. On 23 July 2014 the Notifying Party submitted an improved remedy proposal. On 28 July 2014, the Notifying Party submitted a final set of commitments. The Commission conducted two market tests in relation to these remedies respectively on 18 and 28 July 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 18 July 2014, the Notifying Party submitted a remedy proposal pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation. On 23 July 2014 the Notifying Party submitted an improved remedy proposal. On 28 July 2014, the Notifying Party submitted a final set of commitments. The Commission conducted two market tests in relation to these remedies respectively on 18 and 28 July 2014.

| (8) | On 28 August 2014, the Advisory Committee gathering representatives of national competition authorities agreed with the Commission's assessment of the case and the finding that the commitments submitted on 28 July 2014 were suitable and sufficient to remove the significant impediment of effective competition in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications and that the notified transaction must be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Article 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 28 August 2014, the Advisory Committee gathering representatives of national competition authorities agreed with the Commission's assessment of the case and the finding that the commitments submitted on 28 July 2014 were suitable and sufficient to remove the significant impediment of effective competition in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications and that the notified transaction must be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Article 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

| (9) | On 10 September 2014, the Commission issued a clearance decision under Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

On 10 September 2014, the Commission issued a clearance decision under Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation.

IV.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A.   The relevant product markets

1.   Introduction to TiO2

| (10) | TiO2 is an inorganic chemical which is essentially used to opacify, brighten and whiten various industry and consumer good products. Specifically, it is used in paints and coatings (61 %), plastics (25 %), paper (8 %), usually referred to as ‘mass applications’, as well as in a variety of so called ‘specialty applications’, including printing inks (3,5 %), fibres, and cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food (altogether 2,5 %). |
| --- | --- |

(10)

TiO2 is an inorganic chemical which is essentially used to opacify, brighten and whiten various industry and consumer good products. Specifically, it is used in paints and coatings (61 %), plastics (25 %), paper (8 %), usually referred to as ‘mass applications’, as well as in a variety of so called ‘specialty applications’, including printing inks (3,5 %), fibres, and cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food (altogether 2,5 %).

| (11) | There are two technologies used to produce TiO2: a sulphate-based production process (55 % of global capacity, predominant in the EEA and in China) and a chloride-based production process (45 % of global capacity, predominant in North America). |
| --- | --- |

(11)

There are two technologies used to produce TiO2: a sulphate-based production process (55 % of global capacity, predominant in the EEA and in China) and a chloride-based production process (45 % of global capacity, predominant in North America).

| (12) | TiO2 is produced in a number of different grades, which can be differentiated by varying in particular (i) the average crystal size of the product; and (ii) the coating applied on the crystal. Although they generally have the same basic properties, TiO2 grades differ as regards certain technical characteristics and their intended use. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

TiO2 is produced in a number of different grades, which can be differentiated by varying in particular (i) the average crystal size of the product; and (ii) the coating applied on the crystal. Although they generally have the same basic properties, TiO2 grades differ as regards certain technical characteristics and their intended use.

2.   The Notifying Party's views

| (13) | The Notifying Party claims that, with few exceptions (2), there is no significant difference in the production of different TiO2 grades as the production process, the machinery and the inputs are essentially the same. Although TiO2 suppliers manufacture different grades, TiO2 grades are generally suitable for use in many end-applications. The Notifying Party states that most TiO2 manufacturers can produce or readily switch to producing most grades and thus can serve most end-use applications. As regards the difference in the manufacturing process, the Notifying Party acknowledges that switching production from chloride to sulphate and vice versa is not possible. However, they maintain that chloride and sulphate TiO2 can be used interchangeably for around 80 % of all applications. Finally, according to the Notifying Party, from the demand-side most TiO2 grades are suitable for any use and the different positioning of grades in relation to different applications is the result of marketing strategy decisions, rather than real differences between the products. In conclusion, according to the Notifying Party, there is one overall market for TiO2 composed of differentiated products. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Notifying Party claims that, with few exceptions (2), there is no significant difference in the production of different TiO2 grades as the production process, the machinery and the inputs are essentially the same. Although TiO2 suppliers manufacture different grades, TiO2 grades are generally suitable for use in many end-applications. The Notifying Party states that most TiO2 manufacturers can produce or readily switch to producing most grades and thus can serve most end-use applications. As regards the difference in the manufacturing process, the Notifying Party acknowledges that switching production from chloride to sulphate and vice versa is not possible. However, they maintain that chloride and sulphate TiO2 can be used interchangeably for around 80 % of all applications. Finally, according to the Notifying Party, from the demand-side most TiO2 grades are suitable for any use and the different positioning of grades in relation to different applications is the result of marketing strategy decisions, rather than real differences between the products. In conclusion, according to the Notifying Party, there is one overall market for TiO2 composed of differentiated products.

3.   Commission's decisional practice

| (14) | The Commission analysed TiO2 markets in a number of previous cases, where it assessed these markets on the basis of end-applications. Specifically, the Commission identified three main categories of TiO2 end-applications: coatings, plastics and specialty applications. In addition, the Commission considered that these categories could be further subdivided in the following subcategories: ‘(coatings) into decorative, automotive, industrial durable and general industrial applications; plastics into masterbatches, PVC and other plastics applications; specialities into inks, paper, laminates and fibres applications’ (3). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Commission analysed TiO2 markets in a number of previous cases, where it assessed these markets on the basis of end-applications. Specifically, the Commission identified three main categories of TiO2 end-applications: coatings, plastics and specialty applications. In addition, the Commission considered that these categories could be further subdivided in the following subcategories: ‘(coatings) into decorative, automotive, industrial durable and general industrial applications; plastics into masterbatches, PVC and other plastics applications; specialities into inks, paper, laminates and fibres applications’ (3).

| (15) | The Commission also found that within each application subcategory, a number of grades are used to match the specific technical requirements of the customers (4). However, in previous decisions, the Commission considered that there was no need to further delineate the relevant product markets on the basis of TiO2 grades, as one grade can be used for a range of end-applications and as there is a high degree of supply-side substitutability, in particular in relation to the grades within mass applications and within the same chemical process. Ultimately, the Commission left the issue open (5). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Commission also found that within each application subcategory, a number of grades are used to match the specific technical requirements of the customers (4). However, in previous decisions, the Commission considered that there was no need to further delineate the relevant product markets on the basis of TiO2 grades, as one grade can be used for a range of end-applications and as there is a high degree of supply-side substitutability, in particular in relation to the grades within mass applications and within the same chemical process. Ultimately, the Commission left the issue open (5).

| (16) | As to the differences in manufacturing processes, the Commission found that due to the different production equipment the switching between sulphate and chloride-based processes is not possible from a supply-side perspective. In addition, from a demand-side perspective, the Commission found that while chloride and sulphate-produced TiO2 can be used interchangeably for around 80 % of all applications, there are nevertheless certain specific applications where either chloride or sulphate-produced TiO2 is preferred. In particular, it was found that sulphate-based TiO2 grades cannot be substituted by chloride-based grades for certain speciality applications, such as inks and fibres (6). |
| --- | --- |

(16)

As to the differences in manufacturing processes, the Commission found that due to the different production equipment the switching between sulphate and chloride-based processes is not possible from a supply-side perspective. In addition, from a demand-side perspective, the Commission found that while chloride and sulphate-produced TiO2 can be used interchangeably for around 80 % of all applications, there are nevertheless certain specific applications where either chloride or sulphate-produced TiO2 is preferred. In particular, it was found that sulphate-based TiO2 grades cannot be substituted by chloride-based grades for certain speciality applications, such as inks and fibres (6).

4.   Commission's assessment

| (17) | On the basis of the findings of its market investigation, the Commission established that ink manufacturers cannot switch between chloride- and sulphate-based TiO2 grades, and that only sulphate-based grades can be used for the production of printing ink in the EEA. Moreover, the Commission found that only specific TiO2 grades can be used for the production of printing ink applications, and not all the TiO2 suppliers can produce TiO2 grades for printing ink applications as a very specific know-how is required for the production of these types of grades. Finally, the Parties themselves, as well as independent industry sources, distinguish TiO2 markets on the basis of the final applications and specifically they analyse the TiO2 market for printing ink application as a separate market. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

On the basis of the findings of its market investigation, the Commission established that ink manufacturers cannot switch between chloride- and sulphate-based TiO2 grades, and that only sulphate-based grades can be used for the production of printing ink in the EEA. Moreover, the Commission found that only specific TiO2 grades can be used for the production of printing ink applications, and not all the TiO2 suppliers can produce TiO2 grades for printing ink applications as a very specific know-how is required for the production of these types of grades. Finally, the Parties themselves, as well as independent industry sources, distinguish TiO2 markets on the basis of the final applications and specifically they analyse the TiO2 market for printing ink application as a separate market.

| (18) | Therefore, the Commission considers that TiO2 for printing ink applications constitutes a separate relevant product market. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Therefore, the Commission considers that TiO2 for printing ink applications constitutes a separate relevant product market.

B.   The relevant geographic markets

1.   The Notifying Party's views

| (19) | The Notifying Party submits that the TiO2 market is global irrespective of any segmentation among the various end-applications for the following reasons. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Notifying Party submits that the TiO2 market is global irrespective of any segmentation among the various end-applications for the following reasons.

| (20) | First, there are significant trade flows between the different world regions, representing 30 % of the global TiO2 demand. Second, a high price correlation can be observed between world regions. There are only minimal price differences which reflect costs of freight and duties between regions. Third, the Notifying Party submits that the larger TiO2 customers are typically global companies and their quality standard is similar across the world. Most customers source from a variety of global suppliers having lists of approved global suppliers. Consolidation of the customer base has increased the customers' buyer power. Fourth, the Notifying Party submits that there are no significant regulatory or other constraints limiting the supply of TiO2 into or within the EEA, and that existing tariffs (ranging from 5,5 % to 6,5 %) do not prevent global trade flows. Fifth, the Notifying Party submits that there is no local manufacturing or local distribution network needed. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

First, there are significant trade flows between the different world regions, representing 30 % of the global TiO2 demand. Second, a high price correlation can be observed between world regions. There are only minimal price differences which reflect costs of freight and duties between regions. Third, the Notifying Party submits that the larger TiO2 customers are typically global companies and their quality standard is similar across the world. Most customers source from a variety of global suppliers having lists of approved global suppliers. Consolidation of the customer base has increased the customers' buyer power. Fourth, the Notifying Party submits that there are no significant regulatory or other constraints limiting the supply of TiO2 into or within the EEA, and that existing tariffs (ranging from 5,5 % to 6,5 %) do not prevent global trade flows. Fifth, the Notifying Party submits that there is no local manufacturing or local distribution network needed.

2.   Commission's decisional practice

| (21) | Regarding the geographic market definition, the Commission considered in previous decisions, without referring specifically to the TiO2 for printing ink applications, that ‘the relevant geographic market for titanium dioxide is considered at least the Community’ (7), because of absence of any national barriers, limited impact of transport costs, the capability of the main TiO2 suppliers to serve Western European customers from a few plants and the limited variation of prices across Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Regarding the geographic market definition, the Commission considered in previous decisions, without referring specifically to the TiO2 for printing ink applications, that ‘the relevant geographic market for titanium dioxide is considered at least the Community’ (7), because of absence of any national barriers, limited impact of transport costs, the capability of the main TiO2 suppliers to serve Western European customers from a few plants and the limited variation of prices across Member States.

| (22) | With regard to TiO2 trade flows, the Commission observed main trade flows between the EEA and Northern America. In 1997, more than 20 % of TiO2 were imported into the EEA and 16 % thereof came from Northern America (12 % came from one US chloride-based supplier). The other main importers were Eastern European suppliers as ‘penetration from Asia/Pacific and other world areas has been less significant so far’ (8). Against this background, the Commission assessed the question whether Northern America should be included in the relevant geographic market (9). |
| --- | --- |

(22)

With regard to TiO2 trade flows, the Commission observed main trade flows between the EEA and Northern America. In 1997, more than 20 % of TiO2 were imported into the EEA and 16 % thereof came from Northern America (12 % came from one US chloride-based supplier). The other main importers were Eastern European suppliers as ‘penetration from Asia/Pacific and other world areas has been less significant so far’ (8). Against this background, the Commission assessed the question whether Northern America should be included in the relevant geographic market (9).

| (23) | The Commission noted that trade flows appeared to be driven by different production technologies in the EEA (sulphate-based) and Northern America (chloride-based) and currency fluctuations. The Commission found that chloride-based TiO2 accounted for the major part of the Northern America market, whereby the EEA market was still mainly served by sulphate-based TiO2. In view of different prices and conditions of competition in the EEA and Northern America as well as local EEA distribution and large stock held by suppliers, the Commission concluded ‘that the EEA is still a separate market.’ (10) |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The Commission noted that trade flows appeared to be driven by different production technologies in the EEA (sulphate-based) and Northern America (chloride-based) and currency fluctuations. The Commission found that chloride-based TiO2 accounted for the major part of the Northern America market, whereby the EEA market was still mainly served by sulphate-based TiO2. In view of different prices and conditions of competition in the EEA and Northern America as well as local EEA distribution and large stock held by suppliers, the Commission concluded ‘that the EEA is still a separate market.’ (10)

| (24) | In its most recent case, the Commission observed that TiO2 customers source from suppliers located in Member States other than the country in which their own manufacturing plant is located and several customers import TiO2 from (chloride) plants in the US. In that case the Notifying Party argued that Chinese capacity and worldwide exports from China were increasing, while the market investigation appeared to only identify imports from Japan and Singapore. Ultimately, the Commission left the precise geographic market definition open (11). |
| --- | --- |

(24)

In its most recent case, the Commission observed that TiO2 customers source from suppliers located in Member States other than the country in which their own manufacturing plant is located and several customers import TiO2 from (chloride) plants in the US. In that case the Notifying Party argued that Chinese capacity and worldwide exports from China were increasing, while the market investigation appeared to only identify imports from Japan and Singapore. Ultimately, the Commission left the precise geographic market definition open (11).

3.   Commission's assessment

| (25) | On the basis of the findings of its market investigation, the Commission established that whereas indeed import duties and transport costs do not constitute barriers to international TiO2 trade, the demand characteristics and the competitive landscape in the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications differ across world regions. Moreover, the Commission found that: the price of TiO2 for printing ink applications varies across different geographic regions; negotiations between suppliers and printing ink manufacturers have regional scopes, and geographic proximity of suppliers plays a role in the customer's purchasing decisions. Finally, independent industry sources and the Parties' internal documents report on TiO2 on a regional basis. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

On the basis of the findings of its market investigation, the Commission established that whereas indeed import duties and transport costs do not constitute barriers to international TiO2 trade, the demand characteristics and the competitive landscape in the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications differ across world regions. Moreover, the Commission found that: the price of TiO2 for printing ink applications varies across different geographic regions; negotiations between suppliers and printing ink manufacturers have regional scopes, and geographic proximity of suppliers plays a role in the customer's purchasing decisions. Finally, independent industry sources and the Parties' internal documents report on TiO2 on a regional basis.

| (26) | Therefore, the Commission takes the view that the geographic market for TiO2 for printing ink applications is EEA-wide. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Therefore, the Commission takes the view that the geographic market for TiO2 for printing ink applications is EEA-wide.

C.   Competitive assessment

1.   The Notifying Party's views

| (27) | The Notifying Party submitted that the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications is competitive, that today and post-merger the Parties will face competitive pressure from both chloride-based and other sulphate-based TiO2 suppliers, and in particular from Chinese TiO2 suppliers who have ample sulphate-based capacity. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The Notifying Party submitted that the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications is competitive, that today and post-merger the Parties will face competitive pressure from both chloride-based and other sulphate-based TiO2 suppliers, and in particular from Chinese TiO2 suppliers who have ample sulphate-based capacity.

| (28) | The Notifying Party submitted that the market for TiO2 in general and for TiO2 for printing ink applications in particular is characterised by the ease of entry and expansion. In this context the Notifying Party argued that no significant investments in capacity would be required, since the market, in particular the sulphate-based market, is characterised by substantial overcapacity. The supposedly high degree of supply-side substitutability would in any event make it easy for TiO2 suppliers to counter any capacity constraint by enabling them to switch volumes to the production of TiO2 for printing ink applications. It would therefore be easy and attractive for any sulphate-based manufacturer to enter or expand in the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The Notifying Party submitted that the market for TiO2 in general and for TiO2 for printing ink applications in particular is characterised by the ease of entry and expansion. In this context the Notifying Party argued that no significant investments in capacity would be required, since the market, in particular the sulphate-based market, is characterised by substantial overcapacity. The supposedly high degree of supply-side substitutability would in any event make it easy for TiO2 suppliers to counter any capacity constraint by enabling them to switch volumes to the production of TiO2 for printing ink applications. It would therefore be easy and attractive for any sulphate-based manufacturer to enter or expand in the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

| (29) | The Notifying Party indicated in its response to the Statement of Objections that Chinese suppliers in particular will be able to constrain the merged entity in a timely manner and that Kronos, a TiO2 supplier, would be able to defeat any hypothetical price increase. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The Notifying Party indicated in its response to the Statement of Objections that Chinese suppliers in particular will be able to constrain the merged entity in a timely manner and that Kronos, a TiO2 supplier, would be able to defeat any hypothetical price increase.

| (30) | The Notifying Party also considers that customers face low barriers to switching and that major customers have a significant buying power. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The Notifying Party also considers that customers face low barriers to switching and that major customers have a significant buying power.

2.   Commission's assessment

(i)   Huntsman and Sachtleben are leaders and close competitors in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications

| (31) | In the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications Huntsman and Sachtleben are market leaders, each holding a market share of 30 to 40 % in 2013. They are distantly followed by the number three supplier, Kronos (10 to 20 %). They are the only two TiO2 suppliers, apart from Kronos, which specifically address the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications in the EEA. Both of them market grades that are designed to fit the technical specifications of ink manufacturers (in particular Huntsman's TR52 and Sachtleben's RDI-S). Other sulphate-based TiO2 suppliers do not have dedicated grades for ink manufacturers although they may make some opportunistic but very limited sales of their grades mainly used in other applications to ink manufacturers. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

In the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications Huntsman and Sachtleben are market leaders, each holding a market share of 30 to 40 % in 2013. They are distantly followed by the number three supplier, Kronos (10 to 20 %). They are the only two TiO2 suppliers, apart from Kronos, which specifically address the market for TiO2 for printing ink applications in the EEA. Both of them market grades that are designed to fit the technical specifications of ink manufacturers (in particular Huntsman's TR52 and Sachtleben's RDI-S). Other sulphate-based TiO2 suppliers do not have dedicated grades for ink manufacturers although they may make some opportunistic but very limited sales of their grades mainly used in other applications to ink manufacturers.

| (32) | This structural leadership of Huntsman and Sachtleben reflects their technical and commercial advantage in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications compared to other sulphate-based TiO2 suppliers. Their leading position and closeness of competition in this market have been extensively confirmed by the information the Commission obtained in its market investigation, as well as by the analysis of the Parties' internal documents. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

This structural leadership of Huntsman and Sachtleben reflects their technical and commercial advantage in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications compared to other sulphate-based TiO2 suppliers. Their leading position and closeness of competition in this market have been extensively confirmed by the information the Commission obtained in its market investigation, as well as by the analysis of the Parties' internal documents.

| (33) | Therefore, the Commission takes the view that Huntsman and Sachtleben exert a significant competitive constraint on each other in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

Therefore, the Commission takes the view that Huntsman and Sachtleben exert a significant competitive constraint on each other in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

(ii)   Printing ink manufacturers have limited possibilities of switching suppliers

| (34) | With large TiO2 sulphate-based capacities located mainly in the EEA, Kronos is the third biggest player in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications, although currently lagging far behind the Parties with a market share ranging between 10 and 20 % in 2013. Similarly to the Parties, Kronos has a dedicated printing ink grade which is marketed under the brand name ‘KRONOS 2064’. During the market investigation, respondents indicated however that Kronos is a more distant competitor to the Parties in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications, having the know-how and a suitable product, but generally lacking a strong multipurpose grade (that is, suitable for all printing ink applications), equivalent to TR52 or RDI-S, as well as a competitive price offer in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

With large TiO2 sulphate-based capacities located mainly in the EEA, Kronos is the third biggest player in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications, although currently lagging far behind the Parties with a market share ranging between 10 and 20 % in 2013. Similarly to the Parties, Kronos has a dedicated printing ink grade which is marketed under the brand name ‘KRONOS 2064’. During the market investigation, respondents indicated however that Kronos is a more distant competitor to the Parties in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications, having the know-how and a suitable product, but generally lacking a strong multipurpose grade (that is, suitable for all printing ink applications), equivalent to TR52 or RDI-S, as well as a competitive price offer in the EEA.

| (35) | The Commission analysed the role of Chinese suppliers in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. Although the Commission observed that there is sufficient sulphate-based TiO2 capacity in China to enable Chinese suppliers to export to the EEA and there are no significant barriers to trade that could hinder exports, currently Chinese suppliers have a very limited presence in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. This is explained by a major gap in the quality of the Chinese products as compared to the Parties' grades for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

The Commission analysed the role of Chinese suppliers in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. Although the Commission observed that there is sufficient sulphate-based TiO2 capacity in China to enable Chinese suppliers to export to the EEA and there are no significant barriers to trade that could hinder exports, currently Chinese suppliers have a very limited presence in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. This is explained by a major gap in the quality of the Chinese products as compared to the Parties' grades for printing ink applications.

| (36) | In addition to the Parties and Kronos, there are three Eastern European suppliers that have sulphate-based capacities, namely Cinkarna Celje, Precheza a.s., and Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Police’ SA. They are mostly active either in general coatings grades or specialise on niche markets, such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food. None of these suppliers have dedicated grades for the printing ink market. Other suppliers, such as Ukrainian, Japanese, Korean and Indian suppliers, have a very limited presence in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications as they are either more expensive or do not have the know-how to produce quality grades for printing ink applications. As regards chloride-based TiO2 suppliers, they are not considered as part of the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications as their grades would only fit a very small part of the EEA ink manufacturers' requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

In addition to the Parties and Kronos, there are three Eastern European suppliers that have sulphate-based capacities, namely Cinkarna Celje, Precheza a.s., and Zakłady Chemiczne ‘Police’ SA. They are mostly active either in general coatings grades or specialise on niche markets, such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food. None of these suppliers have dedicated grades for the printing ink market. Other suppliers, such as Ukrainian, Japanese, Korean and Indian suppliers, have a very limited presence in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications as they are either more expensive or do not have the know-how to produce quality grades for printing ink applications. As regards chloride-based TiO2 suppliers, they are not considered as part of the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications as their grades would only fit a very small part of the EEA ink manufacturers' requirements.

| (37) | In light of the above and on the results of the market investigation, the Commission takes the view that customers of the merged company would have limited possibilities of switching to other TiO2 suppliers. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

In light of the above and on the results of the market investigation, the Commission takes the view that customers of the merged company would have limited possibilities of switching to other TiO2 suppliers.

(iii)   Post-merger, the merged entity will be in a position to increase prices in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications

| (38) | The merged entity will not only become the largest sulphate-based supplier worldwide, but it will also control a substantial amount of the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

The merged entity will not only become the largest sulphate-based supplier worldwide, but it will also control a substantial amount of the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

| (39) | Most TiO2 competitors are either unable to produce grades for printing ink applications of sufficient quality because they lack the required know-how, or do not have the incentive to produce grades for printing ink applications due to their size and the costs of entering the market. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Most TiO2 competitors are either unable to produce grades for printing ink applications of sufficient quality because they lack the required know-how, or do not have the incentive to produce grades for printing ink applications due to their size and the costs of entering the market.

| (40) | New entries into the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications appear unlikely in view of the significant investment in terms of costs and time that is needed to start producing TiO2 for printing ink applications. Suppliers that already possess production facilities necessary to enter the market, would still have to acquire the necessary know-how to be able to develop and sell a grade for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

New entries into the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications appear unlikely in view of the significant investment in terms of costs and time that is needed to start producing TiO2 for printing ink applications. Suppliers that already possess production facilities necessary to enter the market, would still have to acquire the necessary know-how to be able to develop and sell a grade for printing ink applications.

| (41) | In particular, Chinese TiO2 suppliers may have incentives to enter the market, and may have been trying to develop a suitable printing ink grade to match the ink manufacturers' technical requirements. Nonetheless, the market investigation revealed that there are significant uncertainties as to whether the market entry of Chinese suppliers will materialise in a timely fashion. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

In particular, Chinese TiO2 suppliers may have incentives to enter the market, and may have been trying to develop a suitable printing ink grade to match the ink manufacturers' technical requirements. Nonetheless, the market investigation revealed that there are significant uncertainties as to whether the market entry of Chinese suppliers will materialise in a timely fashion.

| (42) | The alleged countervailing buyer power enjoyed by customers is unlikely to prevent the merged entity from increasing its prices post-merger, even more so in relation to the smaller, less sophisticated customers representing 30-40 % of the demand. In addition, any degree of buyer power of the few large customers would be seriously weakened post-merger, since the merger would remove the most credible alternative on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

The alleged countervailing buyer power enjoyed by customers is unlikely to prevent the merged entity from increasing its prices post-merger, even more so in relation to the smaller, less sophisticated customers representing 30-40 % of the demand. In addition, any degree of buyer power of the few large customers would be seriously weakened post-merger, since the merger would remove the most credible alternative on the market.

| (43) | In light of the above, the Commission considers that in this case there are no significant mitigating factors, such as the existence of competitors that could act as a disciplining element on the merged entity, or customers with the ability to directly constrain the merged entity's pricing behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

In light of the above, the Commission considers that in this case there are no significant mitigating factors, such as the existence of competitors that could act as a disciplining element on the merged entity, or customers with the ability to directly constrain the merged entity's pricing behaviour.

(iv)   Conclusion

| (44) | Therefore, the Commission concludes that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal Market with regard to the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

Therefore, the Commission concludes that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal Market with regard to the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

D.   The proposed remedies

1.   Undertakings submitted by the Notifying Party

| (45) | In order to address the aforementioned competition concerns in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications, Huntsman proposed to divest its global TR52 business, which mainly includes:






  — | the assignment of the technology that is necessary to develop, manufacture and sell TR52; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(45)

In order to address the aforementioned competition concerns in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications, Huntsman proposed to divest its global TR52 business, which mainly includes:

—

the assignment of the technology that is necessary to develop, manufacture and sell TR52;

| — | the full global transfer of the TR52 brand; |
| --- | --- |

—

the full global transfer of the TR52 brand;

| — | the key personnel with TR52 expertise; |
| --- | --- |

—

the key personnel with TR52 expertise;

| (46) | In addition, during a transitional period Huntsman will provide for: (i) a supply or toll manufacturing agreement for TR52; (ii) a technological support agreement for the provision of necessary technical support and training on the use of the TR52 know-how; (iii) a transitional support agreement for the provision of necessary support in sourcing the necessary equipment and raw materials for the production of TR52, and procuring logistics and distribution services for the distribution of TR52 in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

In addition, during a transitional period Huntsman will provide for: (i) a supply or toll manufacturing agreement for TR52; (ii) a technological support agreement for the provision of necessary technical support and training on the use of the TR52 know-how; (iii) a transitional support agreement for the provision of necessary support in sourcing the necessary equipment and raw materials for the production of TR52, and procuring logistics and distribution services for the distribution of TR52 in the EEA.

| (47) | In order to ensure the transfer of the TR52 business to a suitable buyer, the up-front buyer provision was included in the commitments submitted by Huntsman. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

In order to ensure the transfer of the TR52 business to a suitable buyer, the up-front buyer provision was included in the commitments submitted by Huntsman.

2.   Assessment of the undertakings submitted

| (48) | The Commission concluded that the transaction will create a dominant position in the TiO2 market for printing ink applications, while eliminating competition between close competitors that hold large market shares in a market characterised by high barriers to entry in view of the specific know-how necessary to produce TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

The Commission concluded that the transaction will create a dominant position in the TiO2 market for printing ink applications, while eliminating competition between close competitors that hold large market shares in a market characterised by high barriers to entry in view of the specific know-how necessary to produce TiO2 for printing ink applications.

| (49) | TR52 is not only one of Huntsman's flagship TiO2 products for printing ink applications, but also one of the two best-selling (by volume) TiO2 products for printing ink applications in the EEA (the other being Sachtleben's RDI-S). Under current market conditions, the TR52 business represents 30 to 40 % of the overall market. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

TR52 is not only one of Huntsman's flagship TiO2 products for printing ink applications, but also one of the two best-selling (by volume) TiO2 products for printing ink applications in the EEA (the other being Sachtleben's RDI-S). Under current market conditions, the TR52 business represents 30 to 40 % of the overall market.

| (50) | The transfer of the technology and know-how required to develop TR52 will therefore enable, on a stand-alone basis, the entry of a new player, which will swiftly gain an important role in the market and be able to constrain the merged entity. In particular, the provisions about the transitional supply/toll agreement will ensure the timely entry of such new player, who will be able to continue supplying TR52 even during the time needed to complete the technology and know-how transfer and to set up its own production of TR52. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

The transfer of the technology and know-how required to develop TR52 will therefore enable, on a stand-alone basis, the entry of a new player, which will swiftly gain an important role in the market and be able to constrain the merged entity. In particular, the provisions about the transitional supply/toll agreement will ensure the timely entry of such new player, who will be able to continue supplying TR52 even during the time needed to complete the technology and know-how transfer and to set up its own production of TR52.

3.   Conclusion

| (51) | In its decision, the Commission has reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the undertakings submitted by the Parties, the notified concentration will not lead to a dominant position of the Parties in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

In its decision, the Commission has reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the undertakings submitted by the Parties, the notified concentration will not lead to a dominant position of the Parties in the EEA market for TiO2 for printing ink applications.

V.   CONCLUSION

| (52) | For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

| (53) | Consequently the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

Consequently the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

(2)  Nano/ultrafine grades, where the Parties' activities do not overlap.

(3)  Commission Decision C 97/275/EEC in Case IV/M.984 DuPont/ICI (OJ C 275, 11.9.1997, p. 4, paragraph 36).

(4)  Commission Decision C 97/275/EEC in Case IV/M.984 DuPont/ICI (OJ C 275, 11.9.1997, p. 4, paragraph 38).

(5)  Commission Decision C 97/275/EEC in Case IV/M.984 DuPont/ICI (OJ C 275, 11.9.1997, p. 4, paragraphs 38-39), Commission C 2010/072/EU in Case M.5638 Huntsman/Tronox Assets (OJ C 72, 20.3.2010, p. 9, paragraphs 15-16-18).

(6)  Commission Decision C 97/275/05/EEC in Case IV/M.984 DuPont/ICI (OJ C 275, 11.9.1997, p. 4, paragraph 34).

(7)  Commission Decision C 90/304/EEC in Case No IV/M.23 ICI/Tioxide (OJ C 304, 4.12.1990, p. 27, recital 12).

(8)  Commission Decision C 97/275/EEC in Case IV/M.984 DuPont/ICI (OJ C 275, 11.9.1997, paragraph 44).

(9)  See footnote 8.

(10)  See footnote 8.

(11)  Commission Decision C 2010/072/EU in Case M.5638 Huntsman/Tronox Assets (OJ C 72, 20.3.2010, p. 9, paragraph 22).

---

Court of Auditors

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/14

---

Special Report No 24/2014 ‘Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasters well managed?’

(2015/C 67/08)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 24/2014 ‘Is EU support for preventing and restoring damage to forests caused by fire and natural disasters well managed?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/15

---

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People’s Republic of China and extended to Vietnam and Lao People’s Democratic Republic

(2015/C 67/09)

Following the publication of a Notice of impending expiry (1) of the anti-dumping measures in force on the imports of certain ring binder mechanisms originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the country concerned’) and those consigned from Vietnam and from the Lao People’s Democratic Republic whether declared as originating respectively in Vietnam and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic or not, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) has received a request for review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’).

1.   Request for review

The request was lodged on 26 November 2014 by Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH (‘the applicant’) representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of ring binder mechanisms.

2.   Product under review

The product subject to this review is certain ring binder mechanisms (‘the product under review’), currently falling within CN code ex 8305 10 00. It consists of two steel sheets or wires with at least four half-rings made of steel wire fixed on them and which are kept together by a steel cover. They can be opened either by pulling the half rings or with a small steel trigger mechanism fixed to the ring binder mechanism.

3.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 157/2010 (3).

4.   Grounds for the review

The request is based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation of dumping and injury to the Union industry.

4.1.   
  Allegation of likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping

Since, in view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the country concerned is considered to be a non-market economy country, the applicant established normal value for the imports from the country concerned on the basis of the Union industry prices for the like product, in line with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. This methodology is the same as the one applied in the last expiry review investigation. The allegation of likelihood of a continuation of dumping is based on a comparison of the normal value thus established with the export price (at ex-works level) of the product under review when sold for export to the Union and to non EU countries.

On this basis of the above comparison, which shows dumping, the applicant alleges that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping from the country concerned.

4.2.   
  Allegation of likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury

The applicant also provided prima facie evidence that imports of the product under review from the country concerned to the Union have remained significant in absolute terms and in terms of market shares.

The applicant alleges that the injury to the Union industry still exists. It provided prima facie evidence that imports of the product under review from the country concerned to the Union had, among other consequences, a negative impact on the quantities sold and the level of prices charged by the Union industry, resulting in adverse effects on the overall performance of the Union industry.

The applicant alleges the likelihood of a continuation of injury. In this respect the applicant provided evidence that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the current import level of the product under review from the country concerned to the Union is likely to increase significantly due to the available spare production capacities of the exporting producers in the country concerned and the high undercutting margins found based on Chinese export prices of ring binder mechanisms when sold for export to the Union or to non EU countries.

In addition, the applicant alleges that any substantial increase of imports at dumped prices from the country concerned would be likely to cause further injury to the Union industry should measures be allowed to lapse.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Committee established by Article 15(1) of the basic Regulation, that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission hereby initiates a review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.

5.1.   
  Procedure for the determination of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping

5.1.1.   Investigating exporting producers

Exporting producers (4) of the product under review from the country concerned, including those that did not cooperate in the investigation(s) leading to the measures in force, are invited to participate in the Commission investigation.

Procedure for selecting exporting producers to be investigated in the country concerned

Sampling

In view of the potentially large number of exporting producers in the country concerned involved in this expiry review and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission may limit the exporting producers to be investigated to a reasonable number by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling will be carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary, and if so, to select a sample, all exporting producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, including the ones who did not cooperate in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission. These parties have to do so within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified, by providing the Commission with the information on their company(ies) requested in Annex I to this Notice.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of exporting producers, the Commission will also contact the authorities of the country concerned and may contact any known associations of exporting producers.

All interested parties wishing to submit any other relevant information regarding the selection of the sample, excluding the information requested above, must do so within 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.

If a sample is necessary, the exporting producers may be selected based on the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. All known exporting producers, the authorities of the country concerned and associations of exporting producers will be notified by the Commission, via the authorities of the country concerned if appropriate, of the companies selected to be in the sample.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation with regard to exporting producers, the Commission will send questionnaires to the exporting producers selected to be in the sample, to any known association of exporting producers and to the authorities of the country concerned.

All exporting producers selected to be in the sample, any known association of exporting producers and the authorities of the country concerned will have to submit a completed questionnaire within 37 days from the date of notification of the sample selection, unless otherwise specified.

Without prejudice to the possible application of Article 18 of the basic Regulation, companies that have agreed to their possible inclusion in the sample but are not selected to be in the sample will be considered to be cooperating (‘non-sampled cooperating exporting producers’).

5.1.2.   Additional procedure with regard to exporting producers in the non-market economy country concerned

Selection of a market economy third country

In accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, in the case of imports from the country concerned normal value will be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country.

In the previous investigation the Union industry prices were used for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the country concerned. According to the information available to the Commission, other market economy suppliers of the Union may be located inter alia in Thailand, India and Cambodia. The Commission will examine whether there is production and sales of the product under review in those market economy third countries for which there are indications that production of the product under review is taking place. Should establishing normal value for the purpose of the current investigation not be possible on this basis, the Commission envisages using the prices paid or payable in the Union. Interested parties are hereby invited to comment on the appropriateness of the aforementioned options within 10 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

5.1.3.   Investigating unrelated importers
   (5)
   (6)

Unrelated importers of the product under review from the country concerned to the Union are invited to participate in this investigation.

In view of the potentially large number of unrelated importers involved in this expiry review and in order to complete the investigation within the statutory time limits, the Commission may limit to a reasonable number the unrelated importers that will be investigated by selecting a sample (this process is also referred to as ‘sampling’). The sampling will be carried out in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all unrelated importers, or representatives acting on their behalf, including the ones who did not cooperate in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission. These parties must do so within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified, by providing the Commission with the information on their company(ies) requested in Annex II to this Notice.

In order to obtain information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of unrelated importers, the Commission may also contact any known associations of importers.

All interested parties wishing to submit any other relevant information regarding the selection of the sample, excluding the information requested above, must do so within 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.

If a sample is necessary, the importers may be selected based on the largest representative volume of sales of the product under review in the Union which can reasonably be investigated within the time available. All known unrelated importers and associations of importers will be notified by the Commission of the companies selected to be in the sample.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the sampled unrelated importers and to any known association of importers. These parties must submit a completed questionnaire within 37 days from the date of the notification of the sample selection, unless otherwise specified.

5.2.   
  Procedure for the determination of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury – Investigating Union producers

In order to establish whether there is a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury to the Union industry, Union producers of the product under review are invited to participate in the Commission investigation.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation with regard to Union producers the Commission will send questionnaires to known Union producers or representative Union producers and to any known association of Union producers, including the ones who did not cooperate in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review, namely to:

| — | Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

—

Ring Alliance Ringbuchtechnik GmbH;

| — | IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda srl |
| --- | --- |

—

IML Industria Meccanica Lombarda srl

The aforementioned Union producers and the associations of Union producers must submit the completed questionnaire within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified.

Any Union producer and association of Union producers not listed above is invited to contact the Commission, preferably by e-mail, immediately but no later than 15 days after the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified, in order to make itself known and request a questionnaire.

5.3.   
  Procedure for the assessment of Union interest

Should the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury be confirmed, a decision will be reached, pursuant to Article 21 of the basic Regulation, as to whether maintaining the anti-dumping measures would not be against the Union interest. Union producers, importers and their representative associations, users and their representative associations, and representative consumer organisations are invited to make themselves known within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. In order to participate in the investigation, the representative consumer organisations have to demonstrate, within the same deadline, that there is an objective link between their activities and the product under review.

Parties that make themselves known within the above deadline may provide the Commission with information on the Union interest within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. This information may be provided either in a free format or by completing a questionnaire prepared by the Commission. In any case, information submitted pursuant to Article 21 will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

5.4.   
  Other written submissions

Subject to the provisions of this Notice, all interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence. Unless otherwise specified, this information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within 37 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

5.5.   
  Possibility to be heard by the Commission investigation services

All interested parties may request to be heard by the Commission investigation services. Any request to be heard must be made in writing and must specify the reasons for the request. For hearings on issues pertaining to the initial stage of the investigation the request must be submitted within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, a request to be heard must be submitted within the specific deadlines set by the Commission in its communication with the parties.

5.6.   
  Instructions for making written submissions and sending completed questionnaires and correspondence

Information submitted to the Commission for the purpose of trade defence investigations shall be free from copyrights. Interested parties, before submitting to the Commission information and/or data which is subject to third party copyrights, must request specific permission to the copyright holder explicitly allowing a) the Commission to use the information and data for the purpose of this trade defence proceeding and b) to provide the information and/or data to interested parties to this investigation in a form that allows them to exercise their right of defence.

All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, completed questionnaires and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled ‘Limited’ (7).

Interested parties providing ‘Limited’ information are required to furnish non-confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’. These summaries must be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. If an interested party providing confidential information does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, such information may be disregarded.

Interested parties are invited to make all submissions and requests by e-mail including scanned powers of attorney and certification sheets, with the exception of voluminous replies which shall be submitted on a CD-ROM or DVD by hand or by registered mail. By using e-mail, interested parties express their agreement with the rules applicable to electronic submissions contained in the document ‘CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN TRADE DEFENCE CASES’ published on the website of the Directorate-General for Trade: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/june/tradoc_148003.pdf The interested parties must indicate their name, address, telephone and a valid e-mail address and they should ensure that the provided e-mail address is a functioning official business e-mail which is checked on a daily basis. Once contact details are provided, the Commission will communicate with interested parties by e-mail only, unless they explicitly request to receive all documents from the Commission by another means of communication or unless the nature of the document to be sent requires the use of a registered mail. For further rules and information concerning correspondence with the Commission including principles that apply to submissions by e-mail, interested parties should consult the communication instructions with interested parties referred to above.

Commission address for correspondence:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Trade |
| Directorate H |
| Office: CHAR 04/039 |
| 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGÏE |
| E-mail | : | trade-rbm-review-dumping@ec.europa.eu
  trade-rbm-review-injury@ec.europa.eu |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: CHAR 04/039

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGÏE

E-mail

:

trade-rbm-review-dumping@ec.europa.eu

trade-rbm-review-injury@ec.europa.eu

6.   Non-cooperation

In cases where any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, findings, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information may be disregarded and use may be made of facts available.

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

Failure to give a computerised response shall not be deemed to constitute non-cooperation, provided that the interested party shows that presenting the response as requested would result in an unreasonable extra burden or unreasonable additional cost. The interested party should immediately contact the Commission.

7.   Hearing Officer

Interested parties may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings. The Hearing Officer acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission investigation services. The Hearing Officer reviews requests for access to the file, disputes regarding the confidentiality of documents, requests for extension of time limits and requests by third parties to be heard. The Hearing Officer may organise a hearing with an individual interested party and mediate to ensure that the interested parties' rights of defence are being fully exercised.

A request for a hearing with the Hearing Officer should be made in writing and should specify the reasons for the request. For hearings on issues pertaining to the initial stage of the investigation the request must be submitted within 15 days of the date of publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, a request to be heard must be submitted within specific deadlines set by the Commission in its communication with the parties.

The Hearing Officer will also provide opportunities for a hearing involving parties to take place which would allow different views to be presented and rebuttal arguments offered on issues pertaining, among other things, to the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on DG Trade's website:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/contacts/hearing-officer/

8.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, pursuant to Article 11(5) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

9.   Possibility to request a review under Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation

As this expiry review is initiated in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the findings thereof will not lead to the existing measures being amended but will lead to those measures being repealed or maintained in accordance with Article 11(6) of the basic Regulation.

If any interested party considers that a review of the measures is warranted so as to allow for the possibility to amend the measures, that party may request a review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

Parties wishing to request such a review, which would be carried out independently of the expiry review mentioned in this Notice, may contact the Commission at the address given above.

10.   Processing of personal data

Any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (8).

---

(1)  Notice of the impending expiry of anti-dumping measures (OJ C 164, 29.5.2014, p. 21).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (codified version) (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51).

(3)  OJ L 49, 26.2.2010, p. 1.

(4)  An exporting producer is any company in the country concerned which pduces and exports the product under review to the Union market, either directly or via third party, including any of its related companies involved in the production, domestic sales or exports of the product under review.

(5)  Only importers not related to exporting producers can be sampled. Importers that are related to exporting producers have to fill in Annex I to the questionnaire for these exporting producers. For the definition of a related party see point 3 in Annex I.

(6)  The data provided by unrelated importers may also be used in relation to aspects of this investigation other than the determination of dumping.

(7)  A ‘Limited’ document is a document which is considered confidential pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement). It is also a document protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

(8)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

---

ANNEX I

Image

Image

---

ANNEX II

Image

Image

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/25

---

Notice to producers and importers of hydrofluorocarbons and to new undertakings intending to place hydrofluorocarbons in bulk on the market in the European Union in 2016

(2015/C 67/10)

| 1. | This Notice is addressed to undertakings that are concerned by the Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (hereafter ‘the Regulation’) (1):






  (a) | producers and importers that have been assigned a reference value by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU (2); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

This Notice is addressed to undertakings that are concerned by the Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (hereafter ‘the Regulation’) (1):

(a)

producers and importers that have been assigned a reference value by Commission Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU (2);

| (b) | all other undertakings that intend to place at least 100 tonnes of CO2 equivalent of hydrofluorocarbons on the Union market in 2016, not having been assigned a reference value by Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

all other undertakings that intend to place at least 100 tonnes of CO2 equivalent of hydrofluorocarbons on the Union market in 2016, not having been assigned a reference value by Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU.

| 2. | Hydrofluorocarbons means substances, listed in section 1 of Annex I to the Regulation, or mixtures containing any of these substances:
  HFC-23, HFC-32, HFC-41, HFC-125, HFC-134, HFC-134a, HFC-143, HFC-143a, HFC-152, HFC-152a, HFC-161, HFC-227ea, HFC-236cb, HFC-236ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245ca, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, HFC-43-10mee. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hydrofluorocarbons means substances, listed in section 1 of Annex I to the Regulation, or mixtures containing any of these substances:

HFC-23, HFC-32, HFC-41, HFC-125, HFC-134, HFC-134a, HFC-143, HFC-143a, HFC-152, HFC-152a, HFC-161, HFC-227ea, HFC-236cb, HFC-236ea, HFC-236fa, HFC-245ca, HFC-245fa, HFC-365mfc, HFC-43-10mee.

| 3. | Any placing on the market of these substances, except for the uses listed in Article 15(2) points (a) to (e) of the Regulation, needs to be accounted for in the quota system laid down in Articles 15 and 16 of the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Any placing on the market of these substances, except for the uses listed in Article 15(2) points (a) to (e) of the Regulation, needs to be accounted for in the quota system laid down in Articles 15 and 16 of the Regulation.

| 4. | Furthermore, placing on the market of hydrofluorocarbons by each undertaking is subject to quantitative limits. The Commission allocates quotas for the undertakings listed in points 1(a) and (b) of this Notice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Furthermore, placing on the market of hydrofluorocarbons by each undertaking is subject to quantitative limits. The Commission allocates quotas for the undertakings listed in points 1(a) and (b) of this Notice.

| 5. | All data submitted by companies, quotas and reference values are stored online in the HFC Registry accessible via the F-Gas Portal (3) in accordance with Article 17 of the Regulation. All data in the HFC Registry including quotas, reference values, commercial and personal data will be treated as confidential by the European Commission.

  For producers and importers that have been assigned a reference value by Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU, as referred to in point 1(a) of this Notice, only |
| --- | --- |

5.

All data submitted by companies, quotas and reference values are stored online in the HFC Registry accessible via the F-Gas Portal (3) in accordance with Article 17 of the Regulation. All data in the HFC Registry including quotas, reference values, commercial and personal data will be treated as confidential by the European Commission.

For producers and importers that have been assigned a reference value by Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU, as referred to in point 1(a) of this Notice, only

| 6. | Any such undertaking is allocated a quota by the Commission for 2016 in accordance with Article 16(1) and (5) as well as Annexes V and VI to the Regulation. Undertakings will thus receive 89 % of 93 % of their reference value specified in Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU as their quota for 2016. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Any such undertaking is allocated a quota by the Commission for 2016 in accordance with Article 16(1) and (5) as well as Annexes V and VI to the Regulation. Undertakings will thus receive 89 % of 93 % of their reference value specified in Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU as their quota for 2016.

| 7. | If the undertaking intends to place, pursuant to Article 16(4) of the Regulation, additional quantities of hydrofluorocarbons on the market exceeding the quota allocated to them on the basis of their reference value, the undertaking must make a ‘declaration on additional anticipated quantities for 2016’ in the electronic HFC Registry accessible online via the F-Gas Portal (4). Such declarations will only be possible in the period 1 May until 30 June 2015. |
| --- | --- |

7.

If the undertaking intends to place, pursuant to Article 16(4) of the Regulation, additional quantities of hydrofluorocarbons on the market exceeding the quota allocated to them on the basis of their reference value, the undertaking must make a ‘declaration on additional anticipated quantities for 2016’ in the electronic HFC Registry accessible online via the F-Gas Portal (4). Such declarations will only be possible in the period 1 May until 30 June 2015.

| 8. | Only duly completed ‘declarations on additional anticipated quantities’ that are free of errors and received before 1 July 2015 will be considered as valid by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Only duly completed ‘declarations on additional anticipated quantities’ that are free of errors and received before 1 July 2015 will be considered as valid by the Commission.

| 9. | Based on these declarations, the Commission may allocate additional quota, if available, in accordance with Article 16(4) as well as Annexes V and VI to the Regulation, to these undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Based on these declarations, the Commission may allocate additional quota, if available, in accordance with Article 16(4) as well as Annexes V and VI to the Regulation, to these undertakings.

| 10. | The Commission will inform the undertakings about the total allocated quota for 2016 via the HFC Registry. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Commission will inform the undertakings about the total allocated quota for 2016 via the HFC Registry.

| 11. | The ‘declaration on additional anticipated quantities’ by itself does not give any right to place additional hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016 exceeding the quota allocated on the basis of the reference value.

  For undertakings that have not been assigned a reference value by Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU, as referred to in point 1(b) of this Notice, only |
| --- | --- |

11.

The ‘declaration on additional anticipated quantities’ by itself does not give any right to place additional hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016 exceeding the quota allocated on the basis of the reference value.

For undertakings that have not been assigned a reference value by Implementing Decision 2014/774/EU, as referred to in point 1(b) of this Notice, only

| 12. | Any such undertaking that in 2016 wishes to place on the market hydrofluorocarbons needs to follow the procedure described in points 13 to 18 of this Notice. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Any such undertaking that in 2016 wishes to place on the market hydrofluorocarbons needs to follow the procedure described in points 13 to 18 of this Notice.

| 13. | The undertaking needs to be registered as a producer and/or importer of hydrofluorocarbons in the online HFC Registry, accessible via the F-Gas Portal (5). For companies that are not yet registered, guidance on how to register is available on the DG CLIMA website (6). |
| --- | --- |

13.

The undertaking needs to be registered as a producer and/or importer of hydrofluorocarbons in the online HFC Registry, accessible via the F-Gas Portal (5). For companies that are not yet registered, guidance on how to register is available on the DG CLIMA website (6).

| 14. | Furthermore, the undertaking must make a ‘declaration on intention to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016’ in the online HFC Registry, accessible via the F-Gas Portal (7). Such declarations will only be possible in the period 1 May until 30 June 2015. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Furthermore, the undertaking must make a ‘declaration on intention to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016’ in the online HFC Registry, accessible via the F-Gas Portal (7). Such declarations will only be possible in the period 1 May until 30 June 2015.

| 15. | Only duly completed ‘declarations on intention to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market’ that are free of errors and received before 1 July 2015 will be considered as valid by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Only duly completed ‘declarations on intention to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market’ that are free of errors and received before 1 July 2015 will be considered as valid by the Commission.

| 16. | Based on these declarations, the Commission may allocate quota to these undertakings in accordance with Article 16(2) and (5) as well as Annexes V and VI to the Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Based on these declarations, the Commission may allocate quota to these undertakings in accordance with Article 16(2) and (5) as well as Annexes V and VI to the Regulation.

| 17. | The Commission will inform the undertakings about the total allocated quota for 2016 via the online HFC Registry. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The Commission will inform the undertakings about the total allocated quota for 2016 via the online HFC Registry.

| 18. | The registration in the HFC Registry and/or a ‘declaration on intention to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016’ by itself does not give any right to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016. |
| --- | --- |

18.

The registration in the HFC Registry and/or a ‘declaration on intention to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016’ by itself does not give any right to place hydrofluorocarbons on the market in 2016.

---

(1)  OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 195.

(2)  OJ L 318, 5.11.2014, p. 28.

(3)  https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ods2/resources/domain

(4)  https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ods2/resources/domain

(5)  https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ods2/resources/domain

(6)  http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/reporting/index_en.htm

(7)  https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/ods2/resources/domain

---

Corrigenda

| 25.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/27

---

Corrigendum to the single document of the application for registration of the name ‘Oli de l’Empordà’/‘Aceite de L’Empordà’ as protected designation of origin published pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 358 of 10 October 2014
  )

(2015/C 67/11)

In all the language versions:

On page 9, point 3.2, seventh paragraph:

for:

‘of freshly cut grass and walnut’,

read:

read:

‘of freshly cut grass and/or walnut’.

---