# Official Journal C 107/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.107.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 107 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5513 April 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.107.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 107

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5513 April 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 107/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2012/C 107/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 1 July 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier — Rapporteur: Cyprus | 2 |
| 2012/C 107/03 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier | 4 |
| 2012/C 107/04 | Summary of Commission Decision of 13 July 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier) (notified under document C(2011) 4997)
   (
  1
  ) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 107/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2012/C 107/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 1 July 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier — Rapporteur: Cyprus

2

2012/C 107/03

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier

4

2012/C 107/04

Summary of Commission Decision of 13 July 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier) (notified under document C(2011) 4997)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2011) 4997)

1

6

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 107/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| 2012/C 107/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2012/C 107/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark) (
  1
  ) | 13 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 107/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

11

2012/C 107/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

12

2012/C 107/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark) (
  1
  )

1

13

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2012/C 107/08 | Corrigendum to the summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2007 to 31 December 2007 (OJ C 19, 25.1.2008) | 14 |

Corrigenda

2012/C 107/08

Corrigendum to the summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2007 to 31 December 2007 (OJ C 19, 25.1.2008)

14

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 April 2012

2012/C 107/01

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3153 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 106,54 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4384 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82470 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8912 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2027 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6100 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,803 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 296,90 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6989 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1802 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3745 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3664 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2645 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3132 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2128 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6001 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6507 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 500,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,4472 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2961 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4758 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 055,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0360 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,176 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,7840 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,564 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4075 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2124 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,8550 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3153

JPY

Japanese yen

106,54

DKK

Danish krone

7,4384

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82470

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8912

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2027

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6100

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,803

HUF

Hungarian forint

296,90

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6989

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1802

RON

Romanian leu

4,3745

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3664

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2645

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3132

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2128

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6001

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6507

KRW

South Korean won

1 500,58

ZAR

South African rand

10,4472

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2961

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4758

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 055,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0360

PHP

Philippine peso

56,176

RUB

Russian rouble

38,7840

THB

Thai baht

40,564

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4075

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2124

INR

Indian rupee

67,8550

---

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

---

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 1 July 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier

Rapporteur: Cyprus

2012/C 107/02

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has an EU dimension within the meaning of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has an EU dimension within the meaning of the Merger Regulation.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the definitions of the relevant product markets are:






  (a) | the market for magazine paper, comprising all grades of coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’) machine finished coated ((‘MFC’) paper) and supercalendered paper (‘SC’), including SC-B equivalent paper, whereas it is not necessary to conclude whether the market should be defined more broadly as the market for magazine paper or more narrowly as a market for SC paper (including SC-B equivalent paper) in this case; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the definitions of the relevant product markets are:

(a)

the market for magazine paper, comprising all grades of coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’) machine finished coated ((‘MFC’) paper) and supercalendered paper (‘SC’), including SC-B equivalent paper, whereas it is not necessary to conclude whether the market should be defined more broadly as the market for magazine paper or more narrowly as a market for SC paper (including SC-B equivalent paper) in this case;

| (b) | the market for newsprint, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the market for newsprint, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

| (c) | the market for acquisition of recovered paper, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the market for acquisition of recovered paper, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

| (d) | the market for wood procurement, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the market for wood procurement, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

| (e) | the market for production of wood pulp, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the market for production of wood pulp, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

| (f) | the market for generation and wholesale of electricity, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the market for generation and wholesale of electricity, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

| (g) | the market for production of wood panels, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

the market for production of wood panels, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

| (h) | the market for production of sawn timber, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

the market for production of sawn timber, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the definitions of the relevant geographic markets are:






  (a) | for all markets for magazine paper and its potential segments: the EEA plus Switzerland; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the definitions of the relevant geographic markets are:

(a)

for all markets for magazine paper and its potential segments: the EEA plus Switzerland;

| (b) | for all markets for newsprint: the EEA plus Switzerland; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

for all markets for newsprint: the EEA plus Switzerland;

| (c) | for all markets for acquisition of recovered paper: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

for all markets for acquisition of recovered paper: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

| (d) | for all markets for wood procurement: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

for all markets for wood procurement: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

| (e) | for all markets for production of wood pulp: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

for all markets for production of wood pulp: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

| (f) | for all markets for generation and wholesale of electricity: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

for all markets for generation and wholesale of electricity: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

| (g) | for all markets for production of wood panels: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

for all markets for production of wood panels: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

| (h) | for all markets for production of sawn timber: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

for all markets for production of sawn timber: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it in the following markets:






  (a) | all markets for magazine paper, regardless of the precise market definition; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it in the following markets:

(a)

all markets for magazine paper, regardless of the precise market definition;

| (b) | all markets for newsprint; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

all markets for newsprint;

| (c) | all markets for acquisition of recovered paper; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

all markets for acquisition of recovered paper;

| (d) | all markets for wood procurement; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

all markets for wood procurement;

| (e) | all markets for production of wood pulp; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

all markets for production of wood pulp;

| (f) | all markets for generation and wholesale of electricity; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

all markets for generation and wholesale of electricity;

| (g) | all markets for production of wood panels; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

all markets for production of wood panels;

| (h) | all markets for production of sawn timber. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

all markets for production of sawn timber.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's view that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's view that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

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

---

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/4

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier

2012/C 107/03

BACKGROUND

On 28 January 2011, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (2) by which the undertaking UPM-Kymmene Corporation (‘UPM’ or the ‘notifying party’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Myllykoski Corporation (‘Myllykoski’) and Rhein Papier GmbH (‘Rhein Papier’) (also jointly referred to as the ‘other involved parties’). On 4 March 2011, the Commission adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

WRITTEN PROCEDURE

A statement of objections (‘SO’) was sent to the notifying party on 5 May 2011 in which the Commission set out its preliminary conclusion that the notified concentration would significantly impede effective competition in relation to supercalendered (‘SC’) paper. The concerns existed whether or not SC paper would be considered a separate market or part of a larger product market comprising other types of magazine paper (SC, machine finish coated (‘MFC’) and coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’)). UPM replied to the SO by the set deadline, on 20 May 2011.

Access to file

Access to file was granted in part on 6 May 2011. Supplementary documents were provided to UPM on 12, 18 and 19 May. UPM complained to Competition DG about such allegedly late access to the file. However, as UPM has neither referred this to me, nor made any convincing argument as to why it could not defend itself effectively, I consider that the delay in accessing parts of the file was not prejudicial to UPM's rights of defence.

Hearing of third parties

I granted interested third party status to a customer of the parties, namely Bertelsmann AG, and certain of its subsidiaries, including Gruner + Jahr AG & Co, Mohn media Mohndruck GmbH and Prinovis Ltd & Co KG (hereafter jointly referred to as ‘Bertelsmann’).

I also granted interested third party status to certain creditors of Myllykoski (3) and Rhein Papier (4), after they had explained to me their exceptional involvement in this transaction, and how their interest would be specifically affected by the outcome of the proceedings.

One day before the oral hearing I also received an application by a customer of Myllykoski to attend the oral hearing. In light of the insufficiently reasoned application, the fact that the request was submitted at such a late stage, and that the customer had not contributed to the investigation thus far (5), I had serious doubts that this customer would be able to contribute significantly to the clarification of the relevant facts of the case. I therefore decided not to invite this customer to the oral hearing. I nevertheless informed the customer that it could be granted interested third party status and be given the opportunity to be heard in writing, subject to filing a formal application, which, however, the customer did not do.

The oral hearing

In its reply to the SO, the notifying party requested to be heard in an oral hearing, which was held on 27 May 2011. Upon their request, I also invited the interested third parties (Bertelsmann and the Myllykoski and Rhein Papier lenders), whom I considered could usefully contribute to the clarification of the relevant facts.

Upon reasoned requests of each UPM, Myllykoski and the Myllykoski and Rhein Papier lenders, parts of their presentations were held in camera.

THE DRAFT DECISION

The draft decision provides for an unconditional clearance of the proposed concentration. The objections set out in the SO have been reviewed — and abandoned — by the Commission in light of, inter alia, the written comments of the notifying party, the contribution of all participants in the oral hearing, and further investigation carried out post-SO.

CONCLUSION

I have not received any complaint from the notifying party, the other involved parties, or any interested third party about the exercise of their right to be heard. In view thereof and taking into account the observations mentioned above, I consider that the right to be heard of all participants to the proceedings has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 4 July 2011.

Michael ALBERS

---

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

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

2

(3)  Bayerische Landesbank, Sampo Bank plc, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ) and Nordic Investment Bank (‘Myllykoski Lenders (Lead Banks)’), on behalf of the Myllykoski lenders.

3

(4)  Nordea Bank Finland plc (in its capacity as facility agent for the financial institutions that are creditors of Rhein Papier).

4

(5)  Notably, the customer had not responded to questionnaires sent by Competition DG during the proceedings.

5

---

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/6

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 13 July 2011

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

(Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier)

(notified under document C(2011) 4997)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 107/04

On 13 July 2011 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(1) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found in the authentic language of the case and in the working languages of the Commission 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) | UPM is a worldwide company headquartered in Finland which develops, produces and markets paper products. It also produces pulp, electricity, label-stock, sawn timber and wood panel products. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

UPM is a worldwide company headquartered in Finland which develops, produces and markets paper products. It also produces pulp, electricity, label-stock, sawn timber and wood panel products.

| (2) | Myllykoski is a privately-owned Finnish company. It develops, produces and markets paper products. It also produces pulp. It has mills in Finland, Germany and the United States and sales activities worldwide. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Myllykoski is a privately-owned Finnish company. It develops, produces and markets paper products. It also produces pulp. It has mills in Finland, Germany and the United States and sales activities worldwide.

| (3) | Rhein Papier, located in Germany, produces paper products in Germany and has sales worldwide. It is managed by Myllykoski and is controlled by the same shareholders that own Myllykoski. Myllykoski and Rhein Papier are referred to as the Myllykoski Group. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Rhein Papier, located in Germany, produces paper products in Germany and has sales worldwide. It is managed by Myllykoski and is controlled by the same shareholders that own Myllykoski. Myllykoski and Rhein Papier are referred to as the Myllykoski Group.

II.   THE OPERATION

| (4) | On 28 January 2011, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which UPM-Kymmene Corporation (‘UPM’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that Regulation sole control over Myllykoski Corporation (‘Myllykoski’) and Rhein Papier GmbH (‘Rhein Papier’). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 28 January 2011, the Commission received a formal notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which UPM-Kymmene Corporation (‘UPM’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that Regulation sole control over Myllykoski Corporation (‘Myllykoski’) and Rhein Papier GmbH (‘Rhein Papier’).

III.   UNION DIMENSION

| (5) | The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million (2). Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million, but they do not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate Union-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The notified operation therefore has a Union dimension. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million (2). Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million, but they do not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate Union-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The notified operation therefore has a Union dimension.

IV.   THE PROCEDURE

| (6) | By decision of 4 March 2011, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the concentration with the internal market and initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘the Article 6(1)(c) Decision’). UPM submitted its written comments on the Article 6(1)(c) decision on 22 March 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

By decision of 4 March 2011, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the concentration with the internal market and initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘the Article 6(1)(c) Decision’). UPM submitted its written comments on the Article 6(1)(c) decision on 22 March 2011.

| (7) | On 15 April 2011, UPM submitted a set of documents called ‘Papers on a number of key issues’ and announced submitting another economic study. The study was submitted on 18 April 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 15 April 2011, UPM submitted a set of documents called ‘Papers on a number of key issues’ and announced submitting another economic study. The study was submitted on 18 April 2011.

| (8) | On 5 May 2011, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation. By submission of 20 May 2011 UPM responded to the Statement of Objections and asked for an Oral Hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 5 May 2011, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regulation. By submission of 20 May 2011 UPM responded to the Statement of Objections and asked for an Oral Hearing.

| (9) | On 27 May 2011 an Oral Hearing took place. As third parties, the Myllykoski Group, its lending banks and Bertelsmann AG including subsidiaries of the Bertelsmann Group attended the Oral Hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

On 27 May 2011 an Oral Hearing took place. As third parties, the Myllykoski Group, its lending banks and Bertelsmann AG including subsidiaries of the Bertelsmann Group attended the Oral Hearing.

| (10) | The meeting of the Advisory Committee took place on 1 July 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The meeting of the Advisory Committee took place on 1 July 2011.

V.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A.   Relevant markets

| (11) | Both parties are active in the production and distribution of magazine paper and newsprint. The parties’ activities overlap in acquisition of recovered paper, wood procurement and wood pulp production. The concentration also gives rise to several vertical relationships. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Both parties are active in the production and distribution of magazine paper and newsprint. The parties’ activities overlap in acquisition of recovered paper, wood procurement and wood pulp production. The concentration also gives rise to several vertical relationships.

1.   Magazine paper

| (12) | As regards magazine paper both parties are active in all grades except for wood-free paper (‘WFC’) and machine finished coated paper (‘MFC’), which the Myllykoski Group does not produce. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

As regards magazine paper both parties are active in all grades except for wood-free paper (‘WFC’) and machine finished coated paper (‘MFC’), which the Myllykoski Group does not produce.

Image

| (13) | As can be seen from the graph above, the various grades and specifications of magazine paper make up a continuum of different qualities and prices, which in general terms runs from WFC paper (used mainly for magazine covers or very high-quality corporate presentations such as annual reports), through coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’), and supercalendered paper grades (‘SC’). CMR and SC papers are primarily used for publication of consumer magazines, catalogues and advertising/ direct marketing materials (3). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

As can be seen from the graph above, the various grades and specifications of magazine paper make up a continuum of different qualities and prices, which in general terms runs from WFC paper (used mainly for magazine covers or very high-quality corporate presentations such as annual reports), through coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’), and supercalendered paper grades (‘SC’). CMR and SC papers are primarily used for publication of consumer magazines, catalogues and advertising/ direct marketing materials (3).

| (14) | These paper grades can be further segmented into sub-grades, so that CMR is subdivided into light weight coated (‘LWC’), medium weight coated (‘MWC’) and heavy weight coated (‘HWC’). In between SC and CMR there is machine-finished coated (‘MFC’) paper which may be considered as a different category (4). SC paper includes a number of sub-grades such as SC-A+ (and even SC-A++), SC-A, and SC-B. Recently, a number of products have been introduced on the market which, although not produced on SC machines and not necessarily classified as SC papers, compete at the lower end with the SC grades and are referred to as SC-B Equivalent papers or SC-C grades. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

These paper grades can be further segmented into sub-grades, so that CMR is subdivided into light weight coated (‘LWC’), medium weight coated (‘MWC’) and heavy weight coated (‘HWC’). In between SC and CMR there is machine-finished coated (‘MFC’) paper which may be considered as a different category (4). SC paper includes a number of sub-grades such as SC-A+ (and even SC-A++), SC-A, and SC-B. Recently, a number of products have been introduced on the market which, although not produced on SC machines and not necessarily classified as SC papers, compete at the lower end with the SC grades and are referred to as SC-B Equivalent papers or SC-C grades.

| (15) | The Commission, as in previous cases, considered that WFC should not be included in the magazine paper market in view of the different paper characteristics, different applications, price differences and limited — if any — supply side switches between WFC and other types of magazine paper. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Commission, as in previous cases, considered that WFC should not be included in the magazine paper market in view of the different paper characteristics, different applications, price differences and limited — if any — supply side switches between WFC and other types of magazine paper.

| (16) | The Commission also considered that newsprint is not to be included in the magazine paper market as the market investigation has shown that both the demand and supply side substitution is limited. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Commission also considered that newsprint is not to be included in the magazine paper market as the market investigation has shown that both the demand and supply side substitution is limited.

| (17) | The Commission's investigation confirmed that the SC paper segment should not be further sub-divided as all SC paper grades belong to the same market based on considerable demand and supply side substitution. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The Commission's investigation confirmed that the SC paper segment should not be further sub-divided as all SC paper grades belong to the same market based on considerable demand and supply side substitution.

| (18) | Further, the Commission considered that based on very similar product characteristics, the identical applications, price ranges and the switching between the SC-B Equivalent and the SC grades, SC-B Equivalent should be included within the SC paper segment and thus considered part of the magazine paper spectrum. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Further, the Commission considered that based on very similar product characteristics, the identical applications, price ranges and the switching between the SC-B Equivalent and the SC grades, SC-B Equivalent should be included within the SC paper segment and thus considered part of the magazine paper spectrum.

| (19) | Based on the above, the Commission concluded that the market for magazine papers does not include newsprint and WFC papers, but may comprise all of the CMR (and including MFC) and SC grades (including SC-B Equivalent) (5). In any event, given that no competition concerns arise from the concentration to which this Decision relates, when considering either a wider magazine paper market comprising CMR and SC, or even the a narrow SC market alone, the exact market definition can be left open. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Based on the above, the Commission concluded that the market for magazine papers does not include newsprint and WFC papers, but may comprise all of the CMR (and including MFC) and SC grades (including SC-B Equivalent) (5). In any event, given that no competition concerns arise from the concentration to which this Decision relates, when considering either a wider magazine paper market comprising CMR and SC, or even the a narrow SC market alone, the exact market definition can be left open.

| (20) | In the light of the evidence as regards the appreciable trade flows within the EEA and Switzerland, the absence of significant barriers to intra-EEA trade, the fact that transport is both possible and actually undertaken over long distances, and that sales prices are uniform across this space, the Commission considered that the relevant geographic market is the EEA plus Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

In the light of the evidence as regards the appreciable trade flows within the EEA and Switzerland, the absence of significant barriers to intra-EEA trade, the fact that transport is both possible and actually undertaken over long distances, and that sales prices are uniform across this space, the Commission considered that the relevant geographic market is the EEA plus Switzerland.

2.   Newsprint

| (21) | Both UPM and Myllykoski Group are active in the market for newsprint. Newsprint is a type of paper used mainly for the printing of newspapers. It is distinguished by its relatively low cost and high strength, which allows it to be run through large printing presses at high speed and in large volumes. Newsprint comes in various grades and specifications. The two primary segments of the newsprint market are standard newsprint and improved newsprint (6). |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Both UPM and Myllykoski Group are active in the market for newsprint. Newsprint is a type of paper used mainly for the printing of newspapers. It is distinguished by its relatively low cost and high strength, which allows it to be run through large printing presses at high speed and in large volumes. Newsprint comes in various grades and specifications. The two primary segments of the newsprint market are standard newsprint and improved newsprint (6).

| (22) | UPM submitted that, in accordance with Commission precedents (7), there is a market for newsprint taken as a whole. It is considered that there is a high degree of demand-side substitutability of different grades of newsprint. In particular, there is common usage of different grades in multiple applications and consumers can and do switch between different grades. In addition, UPM submitted that improved newsprint can be used for magazine applications; in particular it could replace SC paper. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

UPM submitted that, in accordance with Commission precedents (7), there is a market for newsprint taken as a whole. It is considered that there is a high degree of demand-side substitutability of different grades of newsprint. In particular, there is common usage of different grades in multiple applications and consumers can and do switch between different grades. In addition, UPM submitted that improved newsprint can be used for magazine applications; in particular it could replace SC paper.

| (23) | Given that competition concerns would not arise on any reasonable alternative market definition, the Commision left open the exact product market definition in relation to newsprint market. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Given that competition concerns would not arise on any reasonable alternative market definition, the Commision left open the exact product market definition in relation to newsprint market.

| (24) | The Commission concluded that the relevant geographic market for newsprint is the EEA and Switzerland. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The Commission concluded that the relevant geographic market for newsprint is the EEA and Switzerland.

3.   Other markets

| (25) | The Commission concluded that there is no need to precisely define the relevant product and geographic market in relation to: (i) acquisition of recovered paper and (ii) wood procurement and (iii) production of wood pulp, (iv) wood panel products and (v) sawn timber as in this case no competition concerns would arise under any reasonable alternative market definitions. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission concluded that there is no need to precisely define the relevant product and geographic market in relation to: (i) acquisition of recovered paper and (ii) wood procurement and (iii) production of wood pulp, (iv) wood panel products and (v) sawn timber as in this case no competition concerns would arise under any reasonable alternative market definitions.

| (26) | The Commission also concluded that it is not necessary in the present case to define the scope of the product and geographic market in respect to the generation and wholesale supply of electricity as the concentration does not give rise to competition concerns. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The Commission also concluded that it is not necessary in the present case to define the scope of the product and geographic market in respect to the generation and wholesale supply of electricity as the concentration does not give rise to competition concerns.

B.   Competitive assessment

1.   Magazine paper

| (27) | Market shares in the paper industry are typically based on capacity data, for which independent sources (8) exist. In line with this practice, UPM submitted capacity based market shares for an overall magazine paper market and for the SC market segment which were generally confirmed during the market investigation. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

Market shares in the paper industry are typically based on capacity data, for which independent sources (8) exist. In line with this practice, UPM submitted capacity based market shares for an overall magazine paper market and for the SC market segment which were generally confirmed during the market investigation.

| (28) | For the an overall magazine paper market comprising SC, MFC and CMR the following are capacity based market shares:






  Company | Share of capacity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| UPM | 20-30 % |
| Myllykoski Group (9) | 10-20 % |
| Combined | 40-50 % |
| Stora Enso | 10-20 % |
| Norske Skog | 5-10 % |
| SAPPI | 5-10 % |
| Burgo | 5-10 % |
| SCA Forest | 5-10 % |
| Leipa | 0-5 % |
| Others | 5-10 % |
| Total | 100 % |

(28)

For the an overall magazine paper market comprising SC, MFC and CMR the following are capacity based market shares:

Company

Share of capacity

UPM

20-30 %

Myllykoski Group (9)

10-20 %

Combined

40-50 %

Stora Enso

10-20 %

Norske Skog

5-10 %

SAPPI

5-10 %

Burgo

5-10 %

SCA Forest

5-10 %

Leipa

0-5 %

Others

5-10 %

Total

100 %

| (29) | These market shares do not yet include the SC-B Equivalent papers, as these are recent introductions to the market. Including those products in the above capacity figures would lead to a combined market share of the parties of some 30-40 %. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

These market shares do not yet include the SC-B Equivalent papers, as these are recent introductions to the market. Including those products in the above capacity figures would lead to a combined market share of the parties of some 30-40 %.

| (30) | Competition from the recently introduced SC-B Equivalent papers has already had a significant constraining effect on the SC products where the parties have a relatively strong position. These new products compete directly with SC papers, their sales are growing rapidly and it is expected that the pressure coming from the SC-B Equivalent paper producers will increase in the near future. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Competition from the recently introduced SC-B Equivalent papers has already had a significant constraining effect on the SC products where the parties have a relatively strong position. These new products compete directly with SC papers, their sales are growing rapidly and it is expected that the pressure coming from the SC-B Equivalent paper producers will increase in the near future.

| (31) | Considering the SC paper segment (including the SC-B Equivalent the combined market shares would amount to 40-50 % of total capacity, with a number of competitors remaining: Stora Enso (20-30 %), Norske Skog (10-20 %), Holmen (10-20 %) and SCA (5-10 %). |
| --- | --- |

(31)

Considering the SC paper segment (including the SC-B Equivalent the combined market shares would amount to 40-50 % of total capacity, with a number of competitors remaining: Stora Enso (20-30 %), Norske Skog (10-20 %), Holmen (10-20 %) and SCA (5-10 %).

| (32) | The ability of competitors to expand production in reaction to a possible capacity reduction resulting from the transaction is determined to a great extent by their spare capacity and on the evolution of the demand. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The ability of competitors to expand production in reaction to a possible capacity reduction resulting from the transaction is determined to a great extent by their spare capacity and on the evolution of the demand.

| (33) | Based on the demand trends forecasts, the Commission considers that demand in the EEA for magazine paper (including SC) will be stable or even decreasing in the next three to five years. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

Based on the demand trends forecasts, the Commission considers that demand in the EEA for magazine paper (including SC) will be stable or even decreasing in the next three to five years.

| (34) | At the same time, the analysis of competitors' spare capacities on an average annual basis showed that competitors hold significant spare capacity in the market. Indeed, the yearly average utilisation rate of the competitors in the overall market for magazine paper as well as for the narrower SC paper segment was around 88 % in 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

At the same time, the analysis of competitors' spare capacities on an average annual basis showed that competitors hold significant spare capacity in the market. Indeed, the yearly average utilisation rate of the competitors in the overall market for magazine paper as well as for the narrower SC paper segment was around 88 % in 2010.

| (35) | Competitors have a strong interest in filling their capacities as paper making involves very high fixed costs. For this reason, producers seek to fill their capacities and therefore will have the incentives to increase capacity utilisation rates and sales in response to price increases or capacity reductions by UPM. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Competitors have a strong interest in filling their capacities as paper making involves very high fixed costs. For this reason, producers seek to fill their capacities and therefore will have the incentives to increase capacity utilisation rates and sales in response to price increases or capacity reductions by UPM.

| (36) | In conclusion, the competitors have both the ability as well as the incentive to counteract any price increases or any likely capacity reductions contemplated by UPM following the merger. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

In conclusion, the competitors have both the ability as well as the incentive to counteract any price increases or any likely capacity reductions contemplated by UPM following the merger.

| (37) | In view of the considerations that have been set out above and elaborated in detail in the proposed decision, the Commission considers that the proposed concentration will not lead to a significant impediment of effective competition in the magazine paper market or in any of the segments thereof. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

In view of the considerations that have been set out above and elaborated in detail in the proposed decision, the Commission considers that the proposed concentration will not lead to a significant impediment of effective competition in the magazine paper market or in any of the segments thereof.

2.   Newsprint

| (38) | The parties' share of newsprint capacity would not exceed 20-30 %, irrespective of whether the market is considered to be a single market for all newsprint or on separate markets for standard and improved newsprint. The proposed concentration would have no effect on a separate market for super-improved newsprint or SC-B Equivalent as neither UPM nor Myllykoski produce this type of paper. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

The parties' share of newsprint capacity would not exceed 20-30 %, irrespective of whether the market is considered to be a single market for all newsprint or on separate markets for standard and improved newsprint. The proposed concentration would have no effect on a separate market for super-improved newsprint or SC-B Equivalent as neither UPM nor Myllykoski produce this type of paper.

| (39) | In terms of shares of sales the parties would have had combined market shares in 2010 of 20-30 % and 20-30 % for standard and improved newsprint respectively (10). On a market for improved newsprint excluding all the capacity used for the production of SC-B Equivalent papers the Commission estimated that the parties' combined market share would have been 20-30 %. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

In terms of shares of sales the parties would have had combined market shares in 2010 of 20-30 % and 20-30 % for standard and improved newsprint respectively (10). On a market for improved newsprint excluding all the capacity used for the production of SC-B Equivalent papers the Commission estimated that the parties' combined market share would have been 20-30 %.

| (40) | UPM claimed that the proposed concentration would not create competition concerns as a result of that horizontal overlap because: (i) there are strong players on the market capable of competing with the merged entity; (ii) smaller players can successfully compete for contracts given the multi-sourcing practices in the market and (iii) imported paper plays an important role in satisfying EEA demand in newsprint. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

UPM claimed that the proposed concentration would not create competition concerns as a result of that horizontal overlap because: (i) there are strong players on the market capable of competing with the merged entity; (ii) smaller players can successfully compete for contracts given the multi-sourcing practices in the market and (iii) imported paper plays an important role in satisfying EEA demand in newsprint.

| (41) | After the proposed concentration the combined entity will continue to face competition from Stora Enso which will remain the largest player overall (based on capacity) and for improved newsprint. In addition there are four other important players, Norske Skog, SCA, Holmen and Palm. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

After the proposed concentration the combined entity will continue to face competition from Stora Enso which will remain the largest player overall (based on capacity) and for improved newsprint. In addition there are four other important players, Norske Skog, SCA, Holmen and Palm.

| (42) | Concerning the risk of potential coordination, the Commission noted that is is unlikely that the concentration would increase the incentives to collude, particularly as there would be no reduction in the number of significant players. Myllykoski is only the sixth largest player and is less than one fifth the size of the current market leader Stora Enso. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

Concerning the risk of potential coordination, the Commission noted that is is unlikely that the concentration would increase the incentives to collude, particularly as there would be no reduction in the number of significant players. Myllykoski is only the sixth largest player and is less than one fifth the size of the current market leader Stora Enso.

3.   Other markets

| (43) | The Commission concluded that the proposed concentration would not give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition in relation to: (i) the market for newsprint and its potential narrower segments; (ii) the market for the acquisition of recovered paper and its potential narrower segments; (iii) the market for wood procurement and its narrower segments and (iv) the market for wood pulp and its narrower segments. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

The Commission concluded that the proposed concentration would not give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition in relation to: (i) the market for newsprint and its potential narrower segments; (ii) the market for the acquisition of recovered paper and its potential narrower segments; (iii) the market for wood procurement and its narrower segments and (iv) the market for wood pulp and its narrower segments.

| (44) | In addition, the Commission concluded that the proposed concentration would not give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition as concerns the following vertical relationships: (i) the vertical relationship between wood procurement and pulp; (ii) the vertical relationship between pulp and magazine paper under any alternative market definition; (iii) the vertical relationship between the generation and wholesale supply of electricity and magazine paper under any alternative market definition; (iv) the vertical relationship between wood procurement and wood panel products; (v) the vertical relationship between wood procurement and sawn timber; and (vi) the vertical relationship between the acquisition of recovered paper and pulp. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

In addition, the Commission concluded that the proposed concentration would not give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition as concerns the following vertical relationships: (i) the vertical relationship between wood procurement and pulp; (ii) the vertical relationship between pulp and magazine paper under any alternative market definition; (iii) the vertical relationship between the generation and wholesale supply of electricity and magazine paper under any alternative market definition; (iv) the vertical relationship between wood procurement and wood panel products; (v) the vertical relationship between wood procurement and sawn timber; and (vi) the vertical relationship between the acquisition of recovered paper and pulp.

VI.   CONCLUSION

| (45) | 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 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

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 thereof.

| (46) | Consequently the notified operation whereby UPM-Kymmene Corporation acquires sole control of Myllykoski Corporation and Rhein Papier GmbH within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 is hereby declared compatible with the Internal Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

Consequently the notified operation whereby UPM-Kymmene Corporation acquires sole control of Myllykoski Corporation and Rhein Papier GmbH within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 is hereby declared compatible with the Internal Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

(2)  Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Merger Regulation and the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ C 95, 16.4.2008, p. 1).

(3)  Both CMR papers and the SC papers are produced from natural (wood containing) pulp. For the lower qualities pulp from recycled paper may also form part of the input. SC papers, in contrast to CMR papers, are not coated. The production of all kinds of paper involves the use of calenders at the end of the manufacturing process to smooth the surface. A calender is a pair of rolls that applies pressure to the paper. In SC paper production at least two pairs of rubber covered rolls (soft nips) are used and often more.

(4)  MFC is of minor importance in terms of volume and usually not reported separately, but included in LWC. Myllykoski Group does not produce MFC paper.

(5)  Further in this document the expression ‘magazine paper market’ is supposed to include SC, MFC and CMR.

(6)  MFS (synonym for improved newsprint), including UMI (uncoated mechanical improved) and UMO (uncoated mechanical-other).

(7)  See Case COMP/M.646 Repola/Kymmene, 30 October 1995, para. 12; Case COMP/M.2498 UPM-Kymmene/Haindl, 21 November 2001, para. 13; Case COMP/M.3822 Stora Enso/Schneidersöhne Papier, 25 July 2005, para. 16.

(8)  Jaakko Pöyry Databank, RISI; CEPI Print is an association of publication paper producers.

(9)  Myllykoski Group's capacity was downwards corrected in the amount of 93 kt by UPM (Response to the Statement of Objections (see pages 9 and 63).

(10)  Based on parties own sales and CEPIPRINT overall sales.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/11

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 107/05

| 1. | On 2 April 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Rio Tinto plc (‘Rio Tinto’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Richards Bay Mining (Proprietary) Limited and Richards Bay Titanium (Proprietary) Limited (collectively referred to as ‘Richards Bay Minerals’, South Africa) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 2 April 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Rio Tinto plc (‘Rio Tinto’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Richards Bay Mining (Proprietary) Limited and Richards Bay Titanium (Proprietary) Limited (collectively referred to as ‘Richards Bay Minerals’, South Africa) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Rio Tinto: international mining group with activities in aluminium, copper, diamonds and minerals, iron ore, energy and the separation, beneficiation and smelting of rock ilmenite and mineral sands, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Rio Tinto: international mining group with activities in aluminium, copper, diamonds and minerals, iron ore, energy and the separation, beneficiation and smelting of rock ilmenite and mineral sands,

| — | for Richards Bay Minerals: mining, separation, beneficiation and smelting of mineral sands. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Richards Bay Minerals: mining, separation, beneficiation and smelting of mineral sands.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).

---

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 107/06

| 1. | On 30 March 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Sberbank of Russia OAO (‘Sberbank’, Russia) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over BNP Paribas Vostok together with BNP Paribas SA by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 30 March 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Sberbank of Russia OAO (‘Sberbank’, Russia) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over BNP Paribas Vostok together with BNP Paribas SA by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Sberbank: banking, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Sberbank: banking,

| — | for BNP Paribas Group: banking and investment solutions, |
| --- | --- |

—

for BNP Paribas Group: banking and investment solutions,

| — | for BNPP Vostok: deposits, retail loans and wholesale financing. |
| --- | --- |

—

for BNPP Vostok: deposits, retail loans and wholesale financing.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).

---

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 107/07

| 1. | On 29 March 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo GmbH (Germany) — controlled by DONG Energy A/S (‘DONG Energy’, Denmark) — and Boston Holding A/S (Denmark) — controlled by Kirkbi Invest A/S (Denmark), which is ultimately controlled by the Kirk Kristiansen family, and William Demant Invest A/S (Denmark), which is controlled by the Oticon Foundation — acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark A/S GmbH & Co. oHG (‘Borkum Riffgrund I’, Germany), by way of contribution of cash and acquisition of assets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 29 March 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo GmbH (Germany) — controlled by DONG Energy A/S (‘DONG Energy’, Denmark) — and Boston Holding A/S (Denmark) — controlled by Kirkbi Invest A/S (Denmark), which is ultimately controlled by the Kirk Kristiansen family, and William Demant Invest A/S (Denmark), which is controlled by the Oticon Foundation — acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark A/S GmbH & Co. oHG (‘Borkum Riffgrund I’, Germany), by way of contribution of cash and acquisition of assets.

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






  — | for DONG Energy: mainly active in Northern Europe in exploration and production of natural gas and oil, power generation and sale of energy, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for DONG Energy: mainly active in Northern Europe in exploration and production of natural gas and oil, power generation and sale of energy,

| — | for Kirkbi Invest A/S: provision of play materials and experiences as well as teaching materials for children and operation of visitor attractions, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Kirkbi Invest A/S: provision of play materials and experiences as well as teaching materials for children and operation of visitor attractions,

| — | for William Demant Invest: supply of products and equipment to aid the hearing and communication of individuals and non-invasive orthopaedics, development of assisted reproductive technology solutions and investment in commercial real estate, |
| --- | --- |

—

for William Demant Invest: supply of products and equipment to aid the hearing and communication of individuals and non-invasive orthopaedics, development of assisted reproductive technology solutions and investment in commercial real estate,

| — | for Borkum Riffgrund I: will own, operate and maintain an offshore wind farm located in the North Sea. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Borkum Riffgrund I: will own, operate and maintain an offshore wind farm located in the North Sea.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

Corrigenda

| 13.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/14

---

Corrigendum to the summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2007 to 31 December 2007

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 19 of 25 January 2008
  )

2012/C 107/08

On page 4, third and fourth rows of the table:

for:

| ‘12.12.2007 | Olanzapine Teva | Olanzapine | Teva Pharma B.V. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Computerweg 10 |
| 3542 DR Utrecht |
| Nederland |

‘12.12.2007

Olanzapine Teva

Olanzapine

Teva Pharma B.V.

Computerweg 10

3542 DR Utrecht

Nederland

EU/1/07/427/001-022

Film-coated tablet

N05AH03

14.12.2008

EU/1/07/427023-037

Orodispersible tablets

13.12.2007

Atripla

Efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

| Bristol-Myers Squibb Gilead Sciences |
| --- |
| And Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited |
| Unit 13 |
| Stillorgan Industrial Park |
| Blackrock, Co.Dublin |
| Ireland |

Bristol-Myers Squibb Gilead Sciences

And Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited

Unit 13

Stillorgan Industrial Park

Blackrock, Co.Dublin

Ireland

EU/1/07/430/001

Film-coated tablet

J05AR06

18.12.2008’

read:

| ‘12.12.2007 | Olanzapine Teva | Olanzapine | Teva Pharma B.V. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Computerweg 10 |
| 3542 DR Utrecht |
| Nederland |

‘12.12.2007

Olanzapine Teva

Olanzapine

Teva Pharma B.V.

Computerweg 10

3542 DR Utrecht

Nederland

EU/1/07/427/001-022

Film-coated tablet

N05AH03

14.12.2007

EU/1/07/427023-037

Orodispersible tablets

13.12.2007

Atripla

Efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

| Bristol-Myers Squibb Gilead Sciences |
| --- |
| And Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited |
| Unit 13 |
| Stillorgan Industrial Park |
| Blackrock, Co. Dublin |
| Ireland |

Bristol-Myers Squibb Gilead Sciences

And Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited

Unit 13

Stillorgan Industrial Park

Blackrock, Co. Dublin

Ireland

EU/1/07/430/001

Film-coated tablet

J05AR06

18.12.2007’

---