# Official Journal C 295/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.295.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 295 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 524 December 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.295.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 295

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 524 December 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Council |
| 2009/C 295/01 | Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 295/02 | Commission Opinion of 30 November 2009 relating to the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the STED Effluent and Waste Treatment Facility, established on the Cadarache site in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Council

2009/C 295/01

Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (
  1
  )

1

1

OPINIONS

Commission

2009/C 295/02

Commission Opinion of 30 November 2009 relating to the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the STED Effluent and Waste Treatment Facility, established on the Cadarache site in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

4

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 295/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5641 — APOLLO/PLIANT) (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2009/C 295/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5687 — CVC/Subsidiaries of Interbrew Central European Holding) (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2009/C 295/05 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5624 — Nokia/SAP/JV) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2009/C 295/06 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5662 — NIBC/ABN AMRO FUND/MID OCEAN GROUP) (
  1
  ) | 6 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 295/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5641 — APOLLO/PLIANT) (
  1
  )

1

5

2009/C 295/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5687 — CVC/Subsidiaries of Interbrew Central European Holding) (
  1
  )

1

5

2009/C 295/05

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5624 — Nokia/SAP/JV) (
  1
  )

1

6

2009/C 295/06

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5662 — NIBC/ABN AMRO FUND/MID OCEAN GROUP) (
  1
  )

1

6

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 295/07 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |
| 2009/C 295/08 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 June 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding — Rapporteur: Poland | 8 |
| 2009/C 295/09 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding (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)) | 9 |
| 2009/C 295/10 | Summary of Commission Decision of 22 June 2009 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding) (notified under document C(2009) 4608)
   (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| 2009/C 295/11 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 26 September 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C.39181 — Candle Waxes (2) — Rapporteur: Latvia | 14 |
| 2009/C 295/12 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C.39181 — Paraffin Waxes, renamed Candle Waxes(Pursuant to Article 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) | 15 |
| 2009/C 295/13 | Summary of Commission Decision of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C.39181 — Candle Waxes) (notified under document C(2008) 5476 final)
   (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2009/C 295/14 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (
  1
  ) | 22 |
| 2009/C 295/15 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (
  1
  ) | 27 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 295/07

Euro exchange rates

7

2009/C 295/08

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 June 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding — Rapporteur: Poland

8

2009/C 295/09

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21))

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

9

2009/C 295/10

Summary of Commission Decision of 22 June 2009 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding) (notified under document C(2009) 4608)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2009) 4608)

1

11

2009/C 295/11

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 26 September 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C.39181 — Candle Waxes (2) — Rapporteur: Latvia

14

2009/C 295/12

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C.39181 — Paraffin Waxes, renamed Candle Waxes(Pursuant to Article 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Article 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)

15

2009/C 295/13

Summary of Commission Decision of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C.39181 — Candle Waxes) (notified under document C(2008) 5476 final)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2008) 5476 final)

1

17

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2009/C 295/14

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (
  1
  )

1

22

2009/C 295/15

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (
  1
  )

1

27

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Council

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/1

---

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL

of 30 November 2009

on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/01

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Whereas:

| (1) | In the European Union, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ‘Convention’) constitutes the common basis for the protection of the rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, which for the purposes of this Resolution includes the pre-trial and trial stages. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In the European Union, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ‘Convention’) constitutes the common basis for the protection of the rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, which for the purposes of this Resolution includes the pre-trial and trial stages.

| (2) | Furthermore, the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, is an important foundation for Member States to have trust in each other’s criminal justice systems and to strengthen such trust. At the same time, there is room for further action on the part of the European Union to ensure full implementation and respect of Convention standards, and, where appropriate, to ensure consistent application of the applicable standards and to raise existing standards. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Furthermore, the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, is an important foundation for Member States to have trust in each other’s criminal justice systems and to strengthen such trust. At the same time, there is room for further action on the part of the European Union to ensure full implementation and respect of Convention standards, and, where appropriate, to ensure consistent application of the applicable standards and to raise existing standards.

| (3) | The European Union has successfully established an area of freedom of movement and residence, which citizens benefit from by increasingly travelling, studying and working in countries other than that of their residence. However, the removal of internal borders and the increasing exercise of the rights to freedom of movement and residence have, as an inevitable consequence, led to an increase in the number of people becoming involved in criminal proceedings in a Member State other than that of their residence. In those situations, the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons are particularly important in order to safeguard the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The European Union has successfully established an area of freedom of movement and residence, which citizens benefit from by increasingly travelling, studying and working in countries other than that of their residence. However, the removal of internal borders and the increasing exercise of the rights to freedom of movement and residence have, as an inevitable consequence, led to an increase in the number of people becoming involved in criminal proceedings in a Member State other than that of their residence. In those situations, the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons are particularly important in order to safeguard the right to a fair trial.

| (4) | Indeed, whilst various measures have been taken at European Union level to guarantee a high level of safety for citizens, there is an equal need to address specific problems that can arise when a person is suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Indeed, whilst various measures have been taken at European Union level to guarantee a high level of safety for citizens, there is an equal need to address specific problems that can arise when a person is suspected or accused in criminal proceedings.

| (5) | This calls for specific action on procedural rights, in order to ensure the fairness of the criminal proceedings. Such action, which can comprise legislation as well as other measures, will enhance citizens′ confidence that the European Union and its Member States will protect and guarantee their rights. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

This calls for specific action on procedural rights, in order to ensure the fairness of the criminal proceedings. Such action, which can comprise legislation as well as other measures, will enhance citizens′ confidence that the European Union and its Member States will protect and guarantee their rights.

| (6) | The 1999 Tampere European Council concluded that, in the context of implementing the principle of mutual recognition, work should also be launched on those aspects of procedural law on which common minimum standards are considered necessary in order to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition, respecting the fundamental legal principles of Member States (Conclusion 37). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The 1999 Tampere European Council concluded that, in the context of implementing the principle of mutual recognition, work should also be launched on those aspects of procedural law on which common minimum standards are considered necessary in order to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition, respecting the fundamental legal principles of Member States (Conclusion 37).

| (7) | Also, the 2004 Hague Programme states that further realisation of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation implies the development of equivalent standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, based on studies of the existing level of safeguards in Member States and with due respect for their legal traditions (point III 3.3.1). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Also, the 2004 Hague Programme states that further realisation of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation implies the development of equivalent standards of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, based on studies of the existing level of safeguards in Member States and with due respect for their legal traditions (point III 3.3.1).

| (8) | Mutual recognition presupposes that the competent authorities of the Member States trust the criminal justice systems of the other Member States. For the purpose of enhancing mutual trust within the European Union, it is important that, complementary to the Convention, there exist European Union standards for the protection of procedural rights which are properly implemented and applied in the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Mutual recognition presupposes that the competent authorities of the Member States trust the criminal justice systems of the other Member States. For the purpose of enhancing mutual trust within the European Union, it is important that, complementary to the Convention, there exist European Union standards for the protection of procedural rights which are properly implemented and applied in the Member States.

| (9) | Recent studies show that there is wide support among experts for European Union action on procedural rights, through legislation and other measures, and that there is a need for enhanced mutual trust between the judicial authorities in the Member States (1). These sentiments are echoed by the European Parliament (2). In its Communication for the Stockholm programme (3), the European Commission observes that strengthening the rights of defence is vital in order to maintain mutual trust between the Member States and public confidence in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Recent studies show that there is wide support among experts for European Union action on procedural rights, through legislation and other measures, and that there is a need for enhanced mutual trust between the judicial authorities in the Member States (1). These sentiments are echoed by the European Parliament (2). In its Communication for the Stockholm programme (3), the European Commission observes that strengthening the rights of defence is vital in order to maintain mutual trust between the Member States and public confidence in the European Union.

| (10) | Discussions on procedural rights within the context of the European Union over the last few years have not led to any concrete results. However, a lot of progress has been made in the area of judicial and police cooperation on measures that facilitate prosecution. It is now time to take action to improve the balance between these measures and the protection of procedural rights of the individual. Efforts should be deployed to strengthen procedural guarantees and the respect of the rule of law in criminal proceedings, no matter where citizens decide to travel, study, work or live in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Discussions on procedural rights within the context of the European Union over the last few years have not led to any concrete results. However, a lot of progress has been made in the area of judicial and police cooperation on measures that facilitate prosecution. It is now time to take action to improve the balance between these measures and the protection of procedural rights of the individual. Efforts should be deployed to strengthen procedural guarantees and the respect of the rule of law in criminal proceedings, no matter where citizens decide to travel, study, work or live in the European Union.

| (11) | Bearing in mind the importance and complexity of these issues, it seems appropriate to address them in a step-by-step approach, whilst ensuring overall consistency. By addressing future actions, one area at a time, focused attention can be paid to each individual measure, so as to enable problems to be identified and addressed in a way that will give added value to each measure. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Bearing in mind the importance and complexity of these issues, it seems appropriate to address them in a step-by-step approach, whilst ensuring overall consistency. By addressing future actions, one area at a time, focused attention can be paid to each individual measure, so as to enable problems to be identified and addressed in a way that will give added value to each measure.

| (12) | In view of the non-exhaustive nature of the catalogue of measures laid down in the Annex to this Resolution, the Council should also consider the possibility of addressing the question of protection of procedural rights other than those listed in that catalogue. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In view of the non-exhaustive nature of the catalogue of measures laid down in the Annex to this Resolution, the Council should also consider the possibility of addressing the question of protection of procedural rights other than those listed in that catalogue.

| (13) | Any new EU legislative acts in this field should be consistent with the minimum standards set out by the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Any new EU legislative acts in this field should be consistent with the minimum standards set out by the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights,

HEREBY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION:

| 1. | Action should be taken at the level of the European Union in order to strengthen the rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Such action can comprise legislation as well as other measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Action should be taken at the level of the European Union in order to strengthen the rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Such action can comprise legislation as well as other measures.

| 2. | The Council endorses the ‘Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Roadmap’), set out in the Annex to this Resolution, as the basis for future action. The rights included in this Roadmap, which could be complemented by other rights, are considered to be fundamental procedural rights and action in respect of these rights should be given priority at this stage. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council endorses the ‘Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Roadmap’), set out in the Annex to this Resolution, as the basis for future action. The rights included in this Roadmap, which could be complemented by other rights, are considered to be fundamental procedural rights and action in respect of these rights should be given priority at this stage.

| 3. | The Commission is invited to submit proposals regarding the measures set out in the Roadmap, and to consider presenting the Green Paper mentioned under point F. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is invited to submit proposals regarding the measures set out in the Roadmap, and to consider presenting the Green Paper mentioned under point F.

| 4. | The Council will examine all proposals presented in the context of the Roadmap and pledges to deal with them as matters of priority. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council will examine all proposals presented in the context of the Roadmap and pledges to deal with them as matters of priority.

| 5. | The Council will act in full cooperation with the European Parliament, in accordance with the applicable rules, and will duly collaborate with the Council of Europe. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Council will act in full cooperation with the European Parliament, in accordance with the applicable rules, and will duly collaborate with the Council of Europe.

---

(1)  See inter alia the ‘Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union’, report of 20 November 2008 by the Université Libre de Bruxelles.

(2)  See e.g. the ‘European Parliament recommendation of 7 May 2009 to the Council on development of an EU criminal justice area’, 2009/2012(INI), point 1 (a).

(3)  ‘An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen’, COM(2009) 262/4 (point 4.2.2).

---

ANNEX

ROADMAP FOR STRENGTHENING PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED OR ACCUSED PERSONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The order of the rights indicated in this Roadmap is indicative. It is emphasised that the explanations provided below merely serve to give an indication of the proposed action, and do not aim to regulate the precise scope and content of the measures concerned in advance.

Measure A:   Translation and Interpretation

Short explanation:

The suspected or accused person must be able to understand what is happening and to make him/herself understood. A suspected or accused person who does not speak or understand the language that is used in the proceedings will need an interpreter and translation of essential procedural documents. Particular attention should also be paid to the needs of suspected or accused persons with hearing impediments.

Measure B:   Information on Rights and Information about the Charges

Short explanation:

A person that is suspected or accused of a crime should get information on his/her basic rights orally or, where appropriate, in writing, e.g. by way of a Letter of Rights. Furthermore, that person should also receive information promptly about the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. A person who has been charged should be entitled, at the appropriate time, to the information necessary for the preparation of his or her defence, it being understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings.

Measure C:   Legal Advice and Legal Aid

Short explanation:

The right to legal advice (through a legal counsel) for the suspected or accused person in criminal proceedings at the earliest appropriate stage of such proceedings is fundamental in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings; the right to legal aid should ensure effective access to the aforementioned right to legal advice.

Measure D:   Communication with Relatives, Employers and Consular Authorities

Short explanation:

A suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty shall be promptly informed of the right to have at least one person, such as a relative or employer, informed of the deprivation of liberty, it being understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings. In addition, a suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty in a State other than his or her own shall be informed of the right to have the competent consular authorities informed of the deprivation of liberty.

Measure E:   Special Safeguards for Suspected or Accused Persons who are Vulnerable

Short explanation:

In order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, it is important that special attention is shown to suspected or accused persons who cannot understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings, owing, for example, to their age, mental or physical condition.

Measure F:   A Green Paper on Pre-Trial Detention

Short explanation:

The time that a person can spend in detention before being tried in court and during the court proceedings varies considerably between the Member States. Excessively long periods of pre-trial detention are detrimental for the individual, can prejudice the judicial cooperation between the Member States and do not represent the values for which the European Union stands. Appropriate measures in this context should be examined in a Green Paper.

---

OPINIONS

Commission

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/4

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 30 November 2009

relating to the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the STED Effluent and Waste Treatment Facility, established on the Cadarache site in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the French text is authentic)

2009/C 295/02

On 3 June 2009, the European Commission received from the French Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the STED Effluent and Waste Treatment Facility, established on the Cadarache site in France.

On the basis of these data and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the STED Effluent and Waste Treatment Facility and the nearest point of another Member State, in this case Italy and Spain, amounts to 110 km and 230 km respectively. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the STED Effluent and Waste Treatment Facility and the nearest point of another Member State, in this case Italy and Spain, amounts to 110 km and 230 km respectively.

| 2. | The planned modification will involve an increase of the authorised discharge limit for gaseous tritium. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The planned modification will involve an increase of the authorised discharge limit for gaseous tritium.

| 3. | During normal operating conditions, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

During normal operating conditions, the planned modification will not cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in another Member State.

| 4. | Solid radioactive waste will temporarily be stored on site before being transferred to a disposal facility authorised by the French Government. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Solid radioactive waste will temporarily be stored on site before being transferred to a disposal facility authorised by the French Government.

| 5. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in another Member State will not be liable to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan to modify the disposal of radioactive waste from the STED Effluent and Waste Treatment Facility established on the Cadarache site in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009.

For the Commission

Andris PIEBALGS

Member of the Commission

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5641 — APOLLO/PLIANT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/03

On 26 November 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5641. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5641. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5687 — CVC/Subsidiaries of Interbrew Central European Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/04

On 26 November 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5687. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5687. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5624 — Nokia/SAP/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/05

On 26 November 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5624. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5624. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5662 — NIBC/ABN AMRO FUND/MID OCEAN GROUP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/06

On 16 November 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5662. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5662. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

3 December 2009

2009/C 295/07

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5120 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,17 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4417 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90915 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3159 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5083 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4390 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,810 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,90 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7079 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0977 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2105 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2413 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6276 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5873 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,7180 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0881 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0848 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 746,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,0339 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3224 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3060 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 248,95 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0962 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 69,928 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,0300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,074 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5811 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,1502 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,6650 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5120

JPY

Japanese yen

133,17

DKK

Danish krone

7,4417

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90915

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3159

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5083

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4390

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,810

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,90

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7079

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0977

RON

Romanian leu

4,2105

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2413

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6276

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5873

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,7180

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0881

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0848

KRW

South Korean won

1 746,64

ZAR

South African rand

11,0339

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3224

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3060

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 248,95

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0962

PHP

Philippine peso

69,928

RUB

Russian rouble

44,0300

THB

Thai baht

50,074

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5811

MXN

Mexican peso

19,1502

INR

Indian rupee

69,6650

---

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

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/8

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 June 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding

Rapporteur: Poland

2009/C 295/08

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction can be deemed to have a Community dimension pursuant to Article 1(3) of the EC Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction can be deemed to have a Community dimension pursuant to Article 1(3) of the EC Merger Regulation.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the markets to be considered are:






  (a) | the markets for scheduled passenger air transport services, subdivided on the basis of point of origin/point of destination (O&D) pairs:






  — | whereby for short-haul or medium-haul routes, indirect services do not generally constitute a competitive alternative to direct flights, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the markets to be considered are:

(a)

the markets for scheduled passenger air transport services, subdivided on the basis of point of origin/point of destination (O&D) pairs:

—

whereby for short-haul or medium-haul routes, indirect services do not generally constitute a competitive alternative to direct flights,

| — | whereby for long-haul routes, indirect services could constitute competitive alternatives to direct flights between a given city pair, as long as (i) the indirect flights are marketed as connecting flights; and (ii) only cause a limited extension of the trip duration (connection time not exceeding 150 minutes); |
| --- | --- |

—

whereby for long-haul routes, indirect services could constitute competitive alternatives to direct flights between a given city pair, as long as (i) the indirect flights are marketed as connecting flights; and (ii) only cause a limited extension of the trip duration (connection time not exceeding 150 minutes);

| (b) | the markets for air transport of cargo on a unidirectional basis between Europe and several African countries. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the markets for air transport of cargo on a unidirectional basis between Europe and several African countries.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation as originally proposed by the notifying party, would significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it with respect to passenger air transport on the following routes:






  (a) | Brussels–Frankfurt; |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation as originally proposed by the notifying party, would significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it with respect to passenger air transport on the following routes:

(a)

Brussels–Frankfurt;

| (b) | Brussels–Munich; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Brussels–Munich;

| (c) | Brussels–Hamburg; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Brussels–Hamburg; and

| (d) | Brussels–Zurich. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Brussels–Zurich.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the commitments submitted by the notifying party are susceptible to restore effective competition and render the concentration compatible with the common market on the following routes:






  (a) | Brussels–Frankfurt; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the commitments submitted by the notifying party are susceptible to restore effective competition and render the concentration compatible with the common market on the following routes:

(a)

Brussels–Frankfurt;

| (b) | Brussels–Munich; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Brussels–Munich;

| (c) | Brussels–Hamburg; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Brussels–Hamburg; and

| (d) | Brussels–Zurich. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Brussels–Zurich.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it with respect to the markets for passenger air transport on other short-haul, medium-haul and long-haul routes. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it with respect to the markets for passenger air transport on other short-haul, medium-haul and long-haul routes.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it with respect to the markets for air transport of cargo. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the notified operation would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it with respect to the markets for air transport of cargo.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the commitments set out in the Annex to this draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the commitments set out in the Annex to this draft decision.

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/9

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding

(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))

2009/C 295/09

The draft Decision gives rise to the following observations:

Introduction

On 26 November 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (the Merger Regulation) whereby Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) intends to acquire sole control over SN Airholding SA/NV (SN) by way of purchase of shares. The latter is the holding company of SN Brussels Airlines.

The procedure in Phase II

On 26 January 2009, the Commission initiated proceedings on the basis that the concentration raised serious doubts as to the compatibility with the common market (2). Subsequently, on 24 March 2009, a Statement of Objections (SO) was notified to Lufthansa and, on 25 March 2009, access to the Commission’s investigation file was granted. The Commission concluded in the SO that the concentration raised competition concerns with regard to the following five routes: Brussels-Frankfurt, Brussels-Munich, Brussels-Berlin, Brussels-Hamburg and Brussels-Zurich.

Lufthansa replied to the SO and requested an Oral Hearing which was held on 15 April 2009. Whereas the notifying party was formally represented at the Oral Hearing, SN was not. However, some employees of SN attended the hearing as part of the Lufthansa delegation.

It became subsequently clear that SN had not been directly informed by the Commission of the objections but rather via the notifying party’s legal representatives, who also represented SN. The latter provided SN with a non-confidential version of the SO. SN was also not formally given a deadline within which it could provide its comments or request to be heard orally. Although SN in fact provided input to Lufthansa’s written reply and was represented in the Oral Hearing, the task of being informed and invited to comment on the SO cannot be ‘sub-delegated’ to the notifying party. The Commission itself has to execute its legal obligations vis-à-vis other involved parties pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (3) (the Implementing Regulation). The Commission remedied the situation by sending the non-confidential version of the SO and the Supplementary Statement of Objections (‘SSO’; see below) to SN on 29 April 2009, and gave the undertaking the opportunity to submit comments before 6 May 2009.

Lufthansa’s reply to the SO raised, inter alia, two procedural issues.

It revealed, first, discrepancies between Lufthansa’s and the Commission’s interpretation of the results of the market investigation. It turned out that these discrepancies were partially due to erroneous interpretations of the replies by the notifying party. However, some discrepancies occurred because of the fact that Lufthansa did not obtain full access to certain responses for reasons of confidentiality. Upon verification of the replies, the Commission granted Lufthansa access to non-confidential Excel sheets, in which the Commission summarised all responses, on 29 April 2009.

The other issue related to the assessment of a code-sharing agreement under Article 81 of the EC Treaty carried out by the Commission as part of a merger proceeding. Lufthansa questioned whether such analysis is possible. It raised in particular the issue whether the direct parties to the code-sharing agreement, i.e. a Lufthansa subsidiary and SN, must not be heard on the Commission findings. In order to avoid any breach of the directly involved parties’ rights of defence, the Commission sent the extract of the SO dealing with the preliminary assessment of the code-sharing agreement to both SN and Swiss (Lufthansa’s subsidiary) on 20 April 2009 and granted them the opportunity to submit written observations (4). Both SN and Swiss replied within the given deadline.

On 28 April 2009, the Commission sent an SSO to Lufthansa concerning the Brussels-Zurich route. It granted again access to the Commission file on the following day. The notifying party replied to the SSO on 5 May 2009.

There had been discussions on remedies between the notifying party and the Commission early on in the control procedure. However, the remedies provided on 16 April 2009 were considered inadequate and thus not market tested. Subsequently, Lufthansa submitted further remedy packages on 24 and 29 April 2009. The latter package was preliminarily accepted and market tested by the Commission. The finalised version of the remedies (without affecting the substance of the version of 29 April) was submitted by Lufthansa on 28 May 2009.

The draft Decision

The draft Decision deviates from the SO in three regards. Firstly, the Commission leaves open as to whether time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive passengers belong to two distinct product markets.

Furthermore, it sees no longer a need to assess the compatibility of the code-share agreement under Article 81. Thirdly, the Commission concludes that the competition concerns regarding the Brussels-Berlin route have been solved while the merger control proceeding was conducted. Lufthansa’s and SN’s competitor easyJet’s had decided in the meantime to increase its service from one to two daily frequencies allowing thereby for same-day return trips. For the remaining four routes, the draft Decision states that the transaction would not lead to a significant impediment of effective competition in view of the commitments submitted by the notifying party.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the notifying party, the other involved party or any third party. In view of thereof, and taking into account the observations mentioned above I consider that the parties’ right to be heard in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 11 June 2009.

Michael ALBERS

---

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

1

(2)  Pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

2

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

3

(4)  CFI judgment of 11 July 2007, T-170/06, Alrosa.

4

Alrosa

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/11

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 22 June 2009

declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/M.5335 — Lufthansa/SN Airholding)

(notified under document C(2009) 4608)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/10

On 22 June 2009 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 and in the working languages of the Commission on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at:

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

I.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | On 26 November 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which the undertaking Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LH, Germany) acquires sole control of the undertaking SN Airholding SA/NV (SNAH, Belgium) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 November 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which the undertaking Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LH, Germany) acquires sole control of the undertaking SN Airholding SA/NV (SNAH, Belgium) by way of purchase of shares.

II.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A.   THE PARTIES

| (2) | Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LH or the Notifying Party) is a full-service network carrier with its hubs at Frankfurt International Airport and Munich airport, and a base at Düsseldorf airport. Its two core activities are the air transport of passengers and cargo. LH controls Swiss International Air Lines Ltd (LX), based at Zurich airport, Air Dolomiti, Eurowings, and low-cost carrier Germanwings. Both LH and Swiss are members of the Star Alliance. The Commission approved the project of acquisition of bmi by LH on 14 May 2009 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LH or the Notifying Party) is a full-service network carrier with its hubs at Frankfurt International Airport and Munich airport, and a base at Düsseldorf airport. Its two core activities are the air transport of passengers and cargo. LH controls Swiss International Air Lines Ltd (LX), based at Zurich airport, Air Dolomiti, Eurowings, and low-cost carrier Germanwings. Both LH and Swiss are members of the Star Alliance. The Commission approved the project of acquisition of bmi by LH on 14 May 2009 (2).

| (3) | SN Airholding SA/NV (SNAH) is the holding company of SN Brussels Airlines (SN), a Belgian network carrier with its hub in Brussels Zaventem Airport. SN’s core activity is the air transport of passengers. SN is not a member of any alliance. LH and SN are hereafter referred to as ‘the Parties’. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

SN Airholding SA/NV (SNAH) is the holding company of SN Brussels Airlines (SN), a Belgian network carrier with its hub in Brussels Zaventem Airport. SN’s core activity is the air transport of passengers. SN is not a member of any alliance. LH and SN are hereafter referred to as ‘the Parties’.

B.   THE CONCENTRATION

| (4) | LH intends to acquire initially 45 % of SNAH’s shares, having call options for the remaining shares which can be exercised starting from the first quarter of 2011. Although the present transaction will be completed in two steps, already upon completion of the first step, i.e. the acquisition of 45 % of SNAH’s share capital, LH will exercise sole control over SNAH. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

LH intends to acquire initially 45 % of SNAH’s shares, having call options for the remaining shares which can be exercised starting from the first quarter of 2011. Although the present transaction will be completed in two steps, already upon completion of the first step, i.e. the acquisition of 45 % of SNAH’s share capital, LH will exercise sole control over SNAH.

C.   COMMUNITY DIMENSION

| (5) | The notified concentration has a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the EC Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The notified concentration has a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the EC Merger Regulation.

D.   AIR TRANSPORT OF PASSENGERS

1.   The relevant product and geographic markets

| (6) | The Parties’ passenger air transport activities overlap in particular on a number of short-haul routes out of Brussels. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Parties’ passenger air transport activities overlap in particular on a number of short-haul routes out of Brussels.

| (7) | The market investigation confirmed the Commission’s practice in previous cases to consider the relevant market for scheduled passenger air transport services on the basis of the ‘point of origin/point of destination’ (O&D) city-pair approach while all substitutable airports are included in the respective points of origin and points of destination. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The market investigation confirmed the Commission’s practice in previous cases to consider the relevant market for scheduled passenger air transport services on the basis of the ‘point of origin/point of destination’ (O&D) city-pair approach while all substitutable airports are included in the respective points of origin and points of destination.

| (8) | As regards the distinction between time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive customers, it is not necessary for the Commission to reach a conclusion as to the existence of two distinct product markets for time-sensitive as opposed to non-time-sensitive passengers since the assessment of the competitive situation on the routes affected by the transaction does not differ regardless of the existence of such a distinction. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

As regards the distinction between time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive customers, it is not necessary for the Commission to reach a conclusion as to the existence of two distinct product markets for time-sensitive as opposed to non-time-sensitive passengers since the assessment of the competitive situation on the routes affected by the transaction does not differ regardless of the existence of such a distinction.

| (9) | The market investigation confirmed the Commission’s practice in previous cases that for flights of less than three hours, indirect services do not generally constitute competitive constraint on direct services. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The market investigation confirmed the Commission’s practice in previous cases that for flights of less than three hours, indirect services do not generally constitute competitive constraint on direct services.

| (10) | The Commission further investigated the issue of substitutability between Brussels National Airport in Zaventem (BRU) and Antwerp Airport (ANR). There are strong indications that flights from ANR are not substitutable with flights from BRU. In any event, even if flights from/to BRU and flights from/to ANR were considered as being part of the same market, they would only be remote competitors. Thus, an entry by a competitor offering flights from ANR on routes where competition concerns were identified during the investigation would not counteract the anti-competitive effects of the merger on these routes. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Commission further investigated the issue of substitutability between Brussels National Airport in Zaventem (BRU) and Antwerp Airport (ANR). There are strong indications that flights from ANR are not substitutable with flights from BRU. In any event, even if flights from/to BRU and flights from/to ANR were considered as being part of the same market, they would only be remote competitors. Thus, an entry by a competitor offering flights from ANR on routes where competition concerns were identified during the investigation would not counteract the anti-competitive effects of the merger on these routes.

2.   Treatment of LH’s alliance partners

| (11) | LH’s alliance partners should not be considered for the determination of affected markets because no merger-specific spillover effects are expected to arise concerning the relationships between SN and LH’s partners. With respect to the competitive analysis on the affected markets, the Commission assesses the relationship between LH and its alliance partners and its consequence for their incentive to compete post-merger on a route-by-route basis. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

LH’s alliance partners should not be considered for the determination of affected markets because no merger-specific spillover effects are expected to arise concerning the relationships between SN and LH’s partners. With respect to the competitive analysis on the affected markets, the Commission assesses the relationship between LH and its alliance partners and its consequence for their incentive to compete post-merger on a route-by-route basis.

3.   Route-by-route assessment

3.1.   The Belgium–Germany bundle of routes

| (12) | On the Brussels–Frankfurt route, the Commission found that the merger would lead to a monopoly for time-sensitive passengers. It would also eliminate the close competition between LH and SN for non-time-sensitive passengers and although the merged entity would face competition from the train, the constraint of the train would not be sufficient to compensate for this loss of competition. For all passengers, the merger would eliminate the closest competitor to LH. As a result, the merger is expected to significantly impede effective competition under all alternative market definitions. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

On the Brussels–Frankfurt route, the Commission found that the merger would lead to a monopoly for time-sensitive passengers. It would also eliminate the close competition between LH and SN for non-time-sensitive passengers and although the merged entity would face competition from the train, the constraint of the train would not be sufficient to compensate for this loss of competition. For all passengers, the merger would eliminate the closest competitor to LH. As a result, the merger is expected to significantly impede effective competition under all alternative market definitions.

| (13) | On the Brussels–Munich and Brussels–Hamburg routes, the merger would lead to a monopoly for both time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive passengers (and therefore also for a market including all passengers). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

On the Brussels–Munich and Brussels–Hamburg routes, the merger would lead to a monopoly for both time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive passengers (and therefore also for a market including all passengers).

| (14) | On the Brussels–Berlin route, easyJet announced that it will expand from one to two daily frequencies as of winter IATA season 2009/2010, allowing for same-day return trips. The Commission concluded that easyJet will sufficiently constrain the merged entity, even for time-sensitive passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

On the Brussels–Berlin route, easyJet announced that it will expand from one to two daily frequencies as of winter IATA season 2009/2010, allowing for same-day return trips. The Commission concluded that easyJet will sufficiently constrain the merged entity, even for time-sensitive passengers.

3.2.   The Belgium–Switzerland bundle of routes

| (15) | On all three routes between Belgium and Switzerland (Brussels–Basel, Brussels–Geneva and Brussels–Zurich), one of the Parties is an operating carrier while the other party is a marketing carrier under their code-share agreement. The Commission first investigated whether the code-share agreement should be set aside for the purpose of determining the proper counterfactual. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

On all three routes between Belgium and Switzerland (Brussels–Basel, Brussels–Geneva and Brussels–Zurich), one of the Parties is an operating carrier while the other party is a marketing carrier under their code-share agreement. The Commission first investigated whether the code-share agreement should be set aside for the purpose of determining the proper counterfactual.

| (16) | On Brussels–Basel, irrespective of the proper counterfactual, the Commission concluded that there is no significant impediment to effective competition as this route is too thin to support direct services by two independently operating carriers. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

On Brussels–Basel, irrespective of the proper counterfactual, the Commission concluded that there is no significant impediment to effective competition as this route is too thin to support direct services by two independently operating carriers.

| (17) | On Brussels–Geneva, where SN is the operating carrier, the Commission concluded that LX is not considered as a potential competitor. Thus, there is no competition concern on this route. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

On Brussels–Geneva, where SN is the operating carrier, the Commission concluded that LX is not considered as a potential competitor. Thus, there is no competition concern on this route.

| (18) | On Brussels–Zurich, where LX is the operating carrier, as regards the counterfactual analysis, the Commission concluded that the code-share agreement would likely be terminated absent the merger because SN would join the one-world alliance (and possibly even be acquired by BA) in the absence of the merger. As a result of the end of the code-share, SN would be likely to enter the Brussels–Zurich route. Therefore, the merger would eliminate the significant likelihood of SN’s entry and would therefore lead to a significant impediment of effective competition on the Brussels–Zurich route for both time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

On Brussels–Zurich, where LX is the operating carrier, as regards the counterfactual analysis, the Commission concluded that the code-share agreement would likely be terminated absent the merger because SN would join the one-world alliance (and possibly even be acquired by BA) in the absence of the merger. As a result of the end of the code-share, SN would be likely to enter the Brussels–Zurich route. Therefore, the merger would eliminate the significant likelihood of SN’s entry and would therefore lead to a significant impediment of effective competition on the Brussels–Zurich route for both time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive passengers.

3.3.   Entry barriers

| (19) | On the four routes Brussels–Frankfurt, Brussels–Munich, Brussels–Hamburg and Brussels–Zurich, there are significant entry barriers (e.g. slot constraints notably at peak time at one or both ends, hub/base advantages, market presence of the merged entity in Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, etc.); these barriers are particularly high on hub-to-hub routes such as Brussels–Frankfurt, Brussels–Munich and Brussels–Zurich. As a consequence of these high entry barriers, no airline is likely to enter on any of these routes to defeat the anti-competitive impact of the merger under the conditions currently prevailing on these markets. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

On the four routes Brussels–Frankfurt, Brussels–Munich, Brussels–Hamburg and Brussels–Zurich, there are significant entry barriers (e.g. slot constraints notably at peak time at one or both ends, hub/base advantages, market presence of the merged entity in Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, etc.); these barriers are particularly high on hub-to-hub routes such as Brussels–Frankfurt, Brussels–Munich and Brussels–Zurich. As a consequence of these high entry barriers, no airline is likely to enter on any of these routes to defeat the anti-competitive impact of the merger under the conditions currently prevailing on these markets.

3.4.   Other short-, mid- and long-haul routes

| (20) | Several other short-, long- and mid-haul routes are affected by the present transaction. However, the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market as regards any of these routes. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Several other short-, long- and mid-haul routes are affected by the present transaction. However, the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market as regards any of these routes.

4.   Conclusion

| (21) | The Commission concluded that the transaction, as originally proposed by LH, would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition on the Brussels–Frankfurt, Brussels–Munich, Brussels–Hamburg and Brussels–Zurich routes, both for time-sensitive passengers and non-time-sensitive passengers, and therefore also for a market including all passengers. The transaction would not lead to competition concerns on the other routes affected by this transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The Commission concluded that the transaction, as originally proposed by LH, would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition on the Brussels–Frankfurt, Brussels–Munich, Brussels–Hamburg and Brussels–Zurich routes, both for time-sensitive passengers and non-time-sensitive passengers, and therefore also for a market including all passengers. The transaction would not lead to competition concerns on the other routes affected by this transaction.

E.   AIR TRANSPORT OF CARGO

| (22) | The Commission concluded that the transaction is unlikely to significantly impede effective competition with respect to any of the air transport of cargo markets. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The Commission concluded that the transaction is unlikely to significantly impede effective competition with respect to any of the air transport of cargo markets.

F.   EFFICIENCIES

| (23) | On the basis of the information submitted, the Commission concluded that the efficiencies are not verifiable and to a large extent are not merger-specific, and that it is not likely that they would benefit consumers on the affected routes to such an extent that they could counterbalance the competitive harm. Indeed, paragraph 84 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines notes that ‘it is highly unlikely that a merger leading to a market position approaching that of a monopoly, or leading to a similar level of market power, can be declared compatible with the common market on the ground that efficiency gains would be sufficient to counteract its potential anti-competitive effects’. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

On the basis of the information submitted, the Commission concluded that the efficiencies are not verifiable and to a large extent are not merger-specific, and that it is not likely that they would benefit consumers on the affected routes to such an extent that they could counterbalance the competitive harm. Indeed, paragraph 84 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines notes that ‘it is highly unlikely that a merger leading to a market position approaching that of a monopoly, or leading to a similar level of market power, can be declared compatible with the common market on the ground that efficiency gains would be sufficient to counteract its potential anti-competitive effects’.

G.   COMMITMENTS

| (24) | LH offered commitments in the form of slots, free of charge, within 20 minutes of the requested time, to allow a new entrant to operate flights on each of the four routes where the Commission identifies competition concerns (hereafter Identified City Pair) for up to three frequencies per day in the case of Brussels–Hamburg and Brussels–Munich, and two frequencies a day in the case of Brussels–Frankfurt and Brussels–Zurich. The commitments provide for a slot allocation mechanism whereby the allocation of the requested slots would occur in a timely manner, as early in the season as possible. Furthermore, as a general rule, the new entrant will obtain grandfather rights over these slots, i.e. would be entitled to use the slots transferred from the Parties for a different intra-European city pair than the Identified City Pairs, once it has operated the relevant Identified City Pair during two full consecutive IATA Seasons for the Brussels–Hamburg route, four full consecutive IATA Seasons for the Brussels–Munich and Brussels-Zurich routes and eight full consecutive IATA Seasons for the Brussels–Frankfurt route. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

LH offered commitments in the form of slots, free of charge, within 20 minutes of the requested time, to allow a new entrant to operate flights on each of the four routes where the Commission identifies competition concerns (hereafter Identified City Pair) for up to three frequencies per day in the case of Brussels–Hamburg and Brussels–Munich, and two frequencies a day in the case of Brussels–Frankfurt and Brussels–Zurich. The commitments provide for a slot allocation mechanism whereby the allocation of the requested slots would occur in a timely manner, as early in the season as possible. Furthermore, as a general rule, the new entrant will obtain grandfather rights over these slots, i.e. would be entitled to use the slots transferred from the Parties for a different intra-European city pair than the Identified City Pairs, once it has operated the relevant Identified City Pair during two full consecutive IATA Seasons for the Brussels–Hamburg route, four full consecutive IATA Seasons for the Brussels–Munich and Brussels-Zurich routes and eight full consecutive IATA Seasons for the Brussels–Frankfurt route.

| (25) | In addition, the commitments offer to a new entrant on the Brussels–Hamburg route the possibility to enter into a special prorate and code-share agreement allowing the new entrant to place its codes on flights operated by the Parties from Brussels for purposes of offering a connecting service to/from Hamburg. Finally, the commitments also include ‘ancillary’ remedies such as interlining and intermodal agreements, special prorate agreements and FFP access agreements. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

In addition, the commitments offer to a new entrant on the Brussels–Hamburg route the possibility to enter into a special prorate and code-share agreement allowing the new entrant to place its codes on flights operated by the Parties from Brussels for purposes of offering a connecting service to/from Hamburg. Finally, the commitments also include ‘ancillary’ remedies such as interlining and intermodal agreements, special prorate agreements and FFP access agreements.

| (26) | The commitments constitute a comprehensive package which takes into consideration past experience with remedies in merger cases in the aviation sector. The commitments take account of the fact that slot congestion is an important entry barrier on the problematic routes in this case. In light of this, they are designed to remove this barrier and foster entry on the routes where competition concerns were identified. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The commitments constitute a comprehensive package which takes into consideration past experience with remedies in merger cases in the aviation sector. The commitments take account of the fact that slot congestion is an important entry barrier on the problematic routes in this case. In light of this, they are designed to remove this barrier and foster entry on the routes where competition concerns were identified.

| (27) | The commitments were market-tested with customers and competitors of the Parties. A large number of respondents considered them sufficient to remove the competition concerns created by the merger. Finally, considering the interest demonstrated by several airlines in entering routes where competition concerns have been identified, the Commission concluded that the commitments are very likely to lead to entry by one or several airlines on the Identified City Pairs in a timely manner and that this entry will suffice to resolve the competition concerns identified on these markets. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The commitments were market-tested with customers and competitors of the Parties. A large number of respondents considered them sufficient to remove the competition concerns created by the merger. Finally, considering the interest demonstrated by several airlines in entering routes where competition concerns have been identified, the Commission concluded that the commitments are very likely to lead to entry by one or several airlines on the Identified City Pairs in a timely manner and that this entry will suffice to resolve the competition concerns identified on these markets.

III.   CONCLUSION

| (28) | The transaction as originally proposed by LH would significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of the common market within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Merger Regulation. However, LH submitted a set of commitments susceptible to restore effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The transaction as originally proposed by LH would significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of the common market within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Merger Regulation. However, LH submitted a set of commitments susceptible to restore effective competition.

| (29) | The transaction would not lead to a significant impediment of effective competition, subject to the implementation of the commitments submitted by LH. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The transaction would not lead to a significant impediment of effective competition, subject to the implementation of the commitments submitted by LH.

| (30) | Consequently the concentration is compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the commitments submitted by LH. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Consequently the concentration is compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the commitments submitted by LH.

---

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

(2)  Case COMP/M.5403 — Lufthansa/BMI.

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/14

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 26 September 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C.39181 — Candle Waxes (2)

Rapporteur: Latvia

2009/C 295/11

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

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

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/15

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C.39181 — Paraffin Waxes, renamed ‘Candle Waxes’

(Pursuant to Article 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)

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

Leniency applications & Statement of Objections

Subsequent to an immunity application under the 2002 Leniency Notice from Shell in [...], the Commission carried out inspections at the premises of Sasol (Germany), H&R/Tudapetrol (Germany), Esso/ExxonMobil (Netherlands and Germany), Total (France), Repsol (Spain), ENI (Italy), and MOL (Hungary) in April 2005. The Commission granted conditional immunity to Shell on [...].

The Commission received further leniency applications from Sasol ([...]), Repsol ([...]) and ExxonMobil ([...]). On 16 May 2007, the Commission addressed letters to Sasol, Repsol and ExxonMobil informing them that immunity was not available and, pursuant to point 26 of the Leniency Notice, of its intention to apply a reduction of a fine within a specified band as provided for in the Leniency Notice.

The Commission also received an application for immunity (or alternatively leniency) from RWE after the notification of the Statement of Objections (‘SO’). Since immunity was no longer available, the Commission informed RWE accordingly on 30 November 2007, and stated that the final position of each undertaking, including RWE, would be determined at the end of the administrative procedure in any decision adopted.

The Statement of Objections (SO) was adopted on 25 May 2007 and sent to the following companies or groups of companies: ENI S.p.A.; Exxon Mobil Corporation (USA) and its subsidiaries Esso Deutschland GmbH, Esso Société Anonyme Française and ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical B.V.B.A. (‘ExxonMobil’); Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG, Hansen & Rosenthal KG and its subsidiaries H&R ChemPharm GmbH and H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (‘H&R/Tudapetrol’); MOL Nyrt.; Repsol YPF S.A. and its subsidiaries Repsol Petroleo S.A. and Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A. (Rylesa) (‘Repsol’); Sasol Limited (South Africa) and its subsidiaries Sasol Wax GmbH, Sasol Wax International AG and Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH (‘Sasol’); Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Shell Deutschland Schmierstoffe GmbH, Deutsche Shell GmbH, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (SIPC), the Shell Petroleum Company Limited (SPCO), Shell Petroleum N.V. and the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited (‘Shell’); RWE AG and its subsidiary RWE Dea AG (‘RWE’); Total S.A. and Total France S.A. (‘Total’); and four other entities within one or more of the above groups.

Access to File

The parties received the SO on 30 or 31 May 2007, and were given eight weeks from the time of access to the file to reply, or until 31 July 2007 at the latest. Access to the file was granted in the form of a DVD and access to other documents at the Commission premises. Extensions were granted until 14 August 2007 or 21 August 2007 upon request, based on the arguments of the parties concerned. All parties replied on time.

Subsequently, the Commission requested additional information from a company (not an addressee of the SO) that had held partial interest in Sasol’s wax business. Sasol was given access to the response to this request for information, and submitted written comments on it.

The Oral Hearing

An oral hearing was held on 10-11 December 2007. Except for Repsol Petroleo SA and Repsol YPF SA, all parties exercised their right to be heard orally. The oral hearing did not give rise to any procedural issues. The hearing was valuable both for the parties and for the Commission in that it contributed to the elucidation of certain elements of substance.

Both Total S.A. and RWE complained in their written replies and at the hearing that their rights of defence had been violated due to a lack of information at the investigative stage of the procedure. Total complained that although the Commission addressed an investigation decision to Total S.A. and its subsidiaries, it never carried out an investigation at Total S.A., and never requested any information from Total S.A. RWE argued that it should have been informed of the investigations so that it could have filed a leniency application. I do not accept these lines of argumentation. Pursuant to Article 27, paragraph 1, Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 the Commission shall give undertakings the opportunity to be heard ‘before taking decisions’. Thus, the right to be heard orally and also to make statements in writing is intrinsically linked to the concrete allegations as expressed in the SO. It is not recognized in the phase of the investigation before the Commission has formulated its objections.

The Draft Decision

Following the parties written and oral submissions, the Commission dropped its objections against four of the addressees of the SO.

The duration of the infringement insofar as it relates to slack wax has been shortened as compared to the SO, to six years; the number of parties held liable for the slack wax infringement has been reduced; and the geographical scope is limited to Germany.

In my opinion the draft Decision relates only to objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity to make known their views.

An issue relating to confidentiality of the draft Decision’s text arose on 4 August 2008, when lawyers representing H&R and Tudapetrol wrote to me contesting DG Competition’s proposed treatment of turnover figures in the draft Decision. On 2 September 2008 I replied by providing further explanations and clarifications as to the Commission’s intentions in this respect and stating that, in my view, the proposal to use turnover figures averaged over three years resolved any confidentiality concerns. Following receipt of this letter, the parties decided not to pursue this issue further.

I consider that the right to be heard of all participants to the proceedings has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 23 September 2008.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/17

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 1 October 2008

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/C.39181 — Candle Waxes)

(notified under document C(2008) 5476 final)

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

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/13

SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

| (1) | The Decision was addressed to ENI S.p.A., Esso Deutschland GmbH, Esso Société Anonyme Française, ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A., Exxon Mobil Corporation, H&R ChemPharm GmbH, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH, Hansen & Rosenthal KG, Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG, MOL Nyrt., Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A., Repsol Petróleo S.A., Repsol YPF S.A., Sasol Wax GmbH, Sasol Wax International AG, Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH, Sasol Limited, Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH, Deutsche Shell GmbH, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, the Shell Petroleum Company Limited, Shell Petroleum N.V., the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited, RWE-Dea AG, RWE AG, Total France S.A. and Total S.A. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision was addressed to ENI S.p.A., Esso Deutschland GmbH, Esso Société Anonyme Française, ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A., Exxon Mobil Corporation, H&R ChemPharm GmbH, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH, Hansen & Rosenthal KG, Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG, MOL Nyrt., Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A., Repsol Petróleo S.A., Repsol YPF S.A., Sasol Wax GmbH, Sasol Wax International AG, Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH, Sasol Limited, Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH, Deutsche Shell GmbH, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, the Shell Petroleum Company Limited, Shell Petroleum N.V., the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited, RWE-Dea AG, RWE AG, Total France S.A. and Total S.A.

| (2) | The above 28 legal entities (belonging to 10 undertakings, with some legal entities held liable as parent companies), committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement consisting of price fixing and exchange of commercially sensitive information affecting the paraffin waxes industry in the EEA. For Dea (later Shell), ExxonMobil, MOL, Repsol, Sasol and Total this single and continuous infringement also consisted of customer and/or market allocation in the EEA. The infringement lasted from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005, with different durations for the different legal entities and undertakings. For Dea (later Shell), ExxonMobil, Sasol, and Total this single and continuous infringement also related to slack wax that is sold to end-customers on the German market for the period from 30 October 1997 until 12 May 2004, with different durations for the different legal entities and undertakings involved. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The above 28 legal entities (belonging to 10 undertakings, with some legal entities held liable as parent companies), committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement consisting of price fixing and exchange of commercially sensitive information affecting the paraffin waxes industry in the EEA. For Dea (later Shell), ExxonMobil, MOL, Repsol, Sasol and Total this single and continuous infringement also consisted of customer and/or market allocation in the EEA. The infringement lasted from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005, with different durations for the different legal entities and undertakings. For Dea (later Shell), ExxonMobil, Sasol, and Total this single and continuous infringement also related to slack wax that is sold to end-customers on the German market for the period from 30 October 1997 until 12 May 2004, with different durations for the different legal entities and undertakings involved.

THE CANDLE WAXES INDUSTRY

| (3) | The products concerned are paraffin waxes and, for some addressees of the Decision, also slack wax. Paraffin waxes comprise fully-refined paraffin waxes and semi-refined paraffin waxes (depending on the content of oil) as well as hydro-finished waxes, wax blends, wax specialties and hard paraffin waxes. They are used for the production of a variety of products such as candles, chemicals, tires and automotive products as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. In Europe, 60-70 % of paraffin wax is used for candle production. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes. It is produced in refineries as a by-product in the manufacture of base oils from crude oil. It is also sold to end-customers, to producers of particle boards for instance. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The products concerned are paraffin waxes and, for some addressees of the Decision, also slack wax. Paraffin waxes comprise fully-refined paraffin waxes and semi-refined paraffin waxes (depending on the content of oil) as well as hydro-finished waxes, wax blends, wax specialties and hard paraffin waxes. They are used for the production of a variety of products such as candles, chemicals, tires and automotive products as well as in the rubber, packaging, adhesive and chewing gum industries. In Europe, 60-70 % of paraffin wax is used for candle production. Slack wax is the raw material required for the manufacture of paraffin waxes. It is produced in refineries as a by-product in the manufacture of base oils from crude oil. It is also sold to end-customers, to producers of particle boards for instance.

| (4) | The market value for paraffin waxes and slack wax was estimated in the Statement of Objections at around EUR 485 000 000 in the EEA in 2004. The supplies of the addressees of the decision amounted to 75 % of the demand of the EEA market. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The market value for paraffin waxes and slack wax was estimated in the Statement of Objections at around EUR 485 000 000 in the EEA in 2004. The supplies of the addressees of the decision amounted to 75 % of the demand of the EEA market.

PROCEDURE

| (5) | The Commission’s investigation began as a result of the information received from an immunity application under the 2002 Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the ‘2002 Leniency Notice’). The application was made by Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH on [...]. On [...], the Commission granted Shell conditional immunity from fines in accordance with point 15 of the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Commission’s investigation began as a result of the information received from an immunity application under the 2002 Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the ‘2002 Leniency Notice’). The application was made by Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH on [...]. On [...], the Commission granted Shell conditional immunity from fines in accordance with point 15 of the 2002 Leniency Notice.

| (6) | On 28 and 29 April 2005, the Commission carried out inspections at the premises of Sasol (Germany), H&R/Tudapetrol (Germany), Esso/ExxonMobil (Netherlands and Germany), Total (France), Repsol (Spain), ENI (Italy), and MOL (Hungary). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 28 and 29 April 2005, the Commission carried out inspections at the premises of Sasol (Germany), H&R/Tudapetrol (Germany), Esso/ExxonMobil (Netherlands and Germany), Total (France), Repsol (Spain), ENI (Italy), and MOL (Hungary).

| (7) | Following the inspections, the Commission received applications for immunity and alternatively, applications for a reduction of fines, under the 2002 Leniency Notice from Sasol, Repsol and ExxonMobil. Sasol submitted a leniency application on [...]. Repsol applied for immunity/leniency on [...]. ExxonMobil applied for immunity/leniency on [...]. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Following the inspections, the Commission received applications for immunity and alternatively, applications for a reduction of fines, under the 2002 Leniency Notice from Sasol, Repsol and ExxonMobil. Sasol submitted a leniency application on [...]. Repsol applied for immunity/leniency on [...]. ExxonMobil applied for immunity/leniency on [...].

| (8) | On 25 May 2007, the Commission initiated proceedings and adopted a Statement of Objections (SO) concerning an infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against ENI S.p.A.; Esso Deutschland GmbH, Esso Nederland B.V., Esso Société Anonyme Française, ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A. and Exxon Mobil Corporation, Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG, H&R ChemPharm GmbH, H&R Wasag AG, H&R Beteiligung GmbH, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH and Hansen & Rosenthal KG; MOL Nyrt.; Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A. (Rylesa), Repsol Petróleo S.A. and Repsol YPF S.A.; Sasol Wax GmbH, Sasol Wax International AG, Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH and Sasol Limited Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH, Deutsche Shell GmbH, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (SIPC), the Shell Petroleum Company Limited (SPCO), Shell Petroleum N.V., the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited and the Royal Dutch Shell plc; RWE-Dea AG and RWE AG; and Total France S.A. and Total S.A.. All addressees of the SO submitted written comments in response to the objections raised by the Commission. An Oral Hearing was held on 10 and 11 December 2007. All the undertakings to which the Statement of Objections had been addressed, with the exception of Repsol Petróleo S.A. and Repsol YPF S.A., took part in the Hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

On 25 May 2007, the Commission initiated proceedings and adopted a Statement of Objections (SO) concerning an infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against ENI S.p.A.; Esso Deutschland GmbH, Esso Nederland B.V., Esso Société Anonyme Française, ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A. and Exxon Mobil Corporation, Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG, H&R ChemPharm GmbH, H&R Wasag AG, H&R Beteiligung GmbH, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH and Hansen & Rosenthal KG; MOL Nyrt.; Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A. (Rylesa), Repsol Petróleo S.A. and Repsol YPF S.A.; Sasol Wax GmbH, Sasol Wax International AG, Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH and Sasol Limited Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH, Deutsche Shell GmbH, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited (SIPC), the Shell Petroleum Company Limited (SPCO), Shell Petroleum N.V., the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited and the Royal Dutch Shell plc; RWE-Dea AG and RWE AG; and Total France S.A. and Total S.A.. All addressees of the SO submitted written comments in response to the objections raised by the Commission. An Oral Hearing was held on 10 and 11 December 2007. All the undertakings to which the Statement of Objections had been addressed, with the exception of Repsol Petróleo S.A. and Repsol YPF S.A., took part in the Hearing.

| (9) | In view of the elements brought forward by Esso Nederland B.V. in its reply to the Statement of Objections, the Commission has decided to close proceedings against this company. The Commission has also decided to close the proceedings against H&R Wasag AG, H&R Beteiligung GmbH and the Royal Dutch Shell plc. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In view of the elements brought forward by Esso Nederland B.V. in its reply to the Statement of Objections, the Commission has decided to close proceedings against this company. The Commission has also decided to close the proceedings against H&R Wasag AG, H&R Beteiligung GmbH and the Royal Dutch Shell plc.

FUNCTIONING OF THE CARTEL

| (10) | The evidence in the possession of the Commission demonstrates on a solid and lasting basis that the addressees of the Decision were involved in the infringement as described in recital (2). |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The evidence in the possession of the Commission demonstrates on a solid and lasting basis that the addressees of the Decision were involved in the infringement as described in recital (2).

| (11) | The common overall plan, identical anti-competitive object and single economic aim of the cartel was to reduce and prevent competition on price, to stabilise or raise prices by agreeing on minimum prices and price increases, and for some undertakings, to secure customer relations and certain markets. In summary, the objective of these efforts was to significantly reduce or even eliminate competitive pressure with the ultimate goal of achieving higher profits in order to ultimately stabilise or increase profits. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The common overall plan, identical anti-competitive object and single economic aim of the cartel was to reduce and prevent competition on price, to stabilise or raise prices by agreeing on minimum prices and price increases, and for some undertakings, to secure customer relations and certain markets. In summary, the objective of these efforts was to significantly reduce or even eliminate competitive pressure with the ultimate goal of achieving higher profits in order to ultimately stabilise or increase profits.

| (12) | The Decision describes in detail the evidence found of several meetings and/or contacts each year between representatives of the undertakings involved during the period of the infringement during which the infringing acts were committed. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The Decision describes in detail the evidence found of several meetings and/or contacts each year between representatives of the undertakings involved during the period of the infringement during which the infringing acts were committed.

FINES

Basic amount

| (13) | The basic amount of the fine was determined as a proportion of the average value of the sales of paraffin and/or slack wax made by each undertaking in the relevant geographic area during the last three business years of the infringement (‘variable amount’), multiplied by the number of years of infringement, plus an additional amount, also calculated as a proportion of the value of sales, in order to deter horizontal price fixing agreements (‘entry fee’). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The basic amount of the fine was determined as a proportion of the average value of the sales of paraffin and/or slack wax made by each undertaking in the relevant geographic area during the last three business years of the infringement (‘variable amount’), multiplied by the number of years of infringement, plus an additional amount, also calculated as a proportion of the value of sales, in order to deter horizontal price fixing agreements (‘entry fee’).

| (14) | The criteria that were considered in order to set out the proportions were the nature of the infringement and the geographic scope. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The criteria that were considered in order to set out the proportions were the nature of the infringement and the geographic scope.

| (15) | The variable amount was then multiplied by the relevant duration (different durations for the different legal entities and undertakings). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The variable amount was then multiplied by the relevant duration (different durations for the different legal entities and undertakings).

Adjustments to the basic amount

Aggravating circumstances: Recidivism

| (16) | At the time the infringement took place, Shell and ENI had already been the addressees of previous Commission decisions concerning cartel activities. The fact that these undertakings have repeated the same type of conduct either in the same industry or in different sectors from that, in which they had previously incurred penalties, showed that the first penalties did not prompt these undertakings to change their conduct. This justified an increase in the basic amount to be imposed on Shell and ENI on account of recidivism. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

At the time the infringement took place, Shell and ENI had already been the addressees of previous Commission decisions concerning cartel activities. The fact that these undertakings have repeated the same type of conduct either in the same industry or in different sectors from that, in which they had previously incurred penalties, showed that the first penalties did not prompt these undertakings to change their conduct. This justified an increase in the basic amount to be imposed on Shell and ENI on account of recidivism.

Mitigating circumstances

| (17) | The Commission found no mitigating circumstances in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The Commission found no mitigating circumstances in the present case.

Specific increase for deterrence

| (18) | Accordingly and in line with previous decisions, in order to set the amount of the fine at a level which ensures that it has sufficient deterrent effect the Commission considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fine imposed on ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, ENI, Repsol and RWE. In 2007, the most recent financial year preceding the Decision, the turnover of ExxonMobil and Shell exceeded EUR 250 billion, the turnover of Total exceeded EUR 150 billion, the turnover of ENI exceeded EUR 85 billion and the turnover of Repsol and RWE exceeded EUR 40 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Accordingly and in line with previous decisions, in order to set the amount of the fine at a level which ensures that it has sufficient deterrent effect the Commission considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fine imposed on ExxonMobil, Shell, Total, ENI, Repsol and RWE. In 2007, the most recent financial year preceding the Decision, the turnover of ExxonMobil and Shell exceeded EUR 250 billion, the turnover of Total exceeded EUR 150 billion, the turnover of ENI exceeded EUR 85 billion and the turnover of Repsol and RWE exceeded EUR 40 billion.

Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| (19) | The final individual amounts of the fines calculated prior to the application of the Leniency Notice were below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of the addressed undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The final individual amounts of the fines calculated prior to the application of the Leniency Notice were below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of the addressed undertakings.

Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice: immunity and reduction of fines

| (20) | Shell, Sasol, Repsol and ExxonMobil co-operated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation with a view to receiving the favourable treatment set out in the 2002 Leniency Notice, applicable to the present case. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Shell, Sasol, Repsol and ExxonMobil co-operated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation with a view to receiving the favourable treatment set out in the 2002 Leniency Notice, applicable to the present case.

Immunity

| (21) | Shell was the first undertaking to inform the Commission about the existence of a cartel in the candle waxes sector affecting the EEA market. The documentary evidence and corporate statement Shell provided on [...] and subsequently enabled the Commission to establish the existence, content and the participants of a number of cartel meetings and other contacts as well as to undertake inspections on 28 and 29 April 2005. It terminated its participation to the infringement before its application. Shell therefore qualified for immunity. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Shell was the first undertaking to inform the Commission about the existence of a cartel in the candle waxes sector affecting the EEA market. The documentary evidence and corporate statement Shell provided on [...] and subsequently enabled the Commission to establish the existence, content and the participants of a number of cartel meetings and other contacts as well as to undertake inspections on 28 and 29 April 2005. It terminated its participation to the infringement before its application. Shell therefore qualified for immunity.

Reduction of fines

| (22) | Sasol was the second company to approach the Commission. The information supplied after [...] allowed the Commission to establish facts which the Commission could not have otherwise established. The quantity, quality and value as well as the timing of the information submitted by Sasol allowed the Commission to better understand the infringement and interpret the documents obtained. Sasol’s cooperation was rewarded with a 50 % reduction of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Sasol was the second company to approach the Commission. The information supplied after [...] allowed the Commission to establish facts which the Commission could not have otherwise established. The quantity, quality and value as well as the timing of the information submitted by Sasol allowed the Commission to better understand the infringement and interpret the documents obtained. Sasol’s cooperation was rewarded with a 50 % reduction of the fine.

| (23) | Repsol, which offered its cooperation to the Commission in [...] corroborated Shell’s and Sasol’s submissions and provided further evidence on the cartel as well as self-incriminating evidence. Based on the foregoing, Repsol’s cooperation was rewarded with a 25 % reduction of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Repsol, which offered its cooperation to the Commission in [...] corroborated Shell’s and Sasol’s submissions and provided further evidence on the cartel as well as self-incriminating evidence. Based on the foregoing, Repsol’s cooperation was rewarded with a 25 % reduction of the fine.

| (24) | ExxonMobil approached the Commission in [...] and offered corroborating evidence, although only to a limited extent. Otherwise, ExxonMobil’s submissions were vague and to a large extent contained useless information. ExxonMobil’s cooperation was rewarded with a reduction of the fine of 7 %. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

ExxonMobil approached the Commission in [...] and offered corroborating evidence, although only to a limited extent. Otherwise, ExxonMobil’s submissions were vague and to a large extent contained useless information. ExxonMobil’s cooperation was rewarded with a reduction of the fine of 7 %.

DECISION

| (25) | The addressees of the Decision and the duration of their involvement were as follows: |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The addressees of the Decision and the duration of their involvement were as follows:

| (26) | As far as paraffin waxes are concerned:






  (a) | ENI S.p.A.: on 30 and 31 October 1997 and from 21 February 2002 to 28 April 2005; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(26)

As far as paraffin waxes are concerned:

(a)

ENI S.p.A.: on 30 and 31 October 1997 and from 21 February 2002 to 28 April 2005;

| (b) | Esso Deutschland GmbH: from 22 February 2001 to 20 November 2003; Esso Société Anonyme Française: from 3 September 1992 to 20 November 2003; ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A.: from 30 November 1999 to 20 November 2003; Exxon Mobil Corporation: from 30 November 1999 to 20 November 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Esso Deutschland GmbH: from 22 February 2001 to 20 November 2003; Esso Société Anonyme Française: from 3 September 1992 to 20 November 2003; ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A.: from 30 November 1999 to 20 November 2003; Exxon Mobil Corporation: from 30 November 1999 to 20 November 2003;

| (c) | Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG: from 24 March 1994 to 30 June 2002; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG: from 24 March 1994 to 30 June 2002;

| (d) | H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH: from 1 January 2001 to 28 April 2005; Hansen & Rosenthal KG: from 1 January 2001 to 28 April 2005; H&R ChemPharm GmbH: from 1 July 2001 to 28 April 2005; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH: from 1 January 2001 to 28 April 2005; Hansen & Rosenthal KG: from 1 January 2001 to 28 April 2005; H&R ChemPharm GmbH: from 1 July 2001 to 28 April 2005;

| (e) | MOL Nyrt.: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

MOL Nyrt.: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005;

| (f) | Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A.: from 24 June 1994 to 4 August 2004; Repsol Petróleo S.A.: from 24 June 1994 to 4 August 2004; Repsol YPF S.A.: from 24 June 1994 to 4 August 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A.: from 24 June 1994 to 4 August 2004; Repsol Petróleo S.A.: from 24 June 1994 to 4 August 2004; Repsol YPF S.A.: from 24 June 1994 to 4 August 2004;

| (g) | Sasol Wax GmbH: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005; Sasol Wax International AG: from 1 May 1995 to 28 April 2005; Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH: from 1 May 1995 to 28 April 2005; Sasol Limited: from 1 May 1995 to 28 April 2005; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Sasol Wax GmbH: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005; Sasol Wax International AG: from 1 May 1995 to 28 April 2005; Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH: from 1 May 1995 to 28 April 2005; Sasol Limited: from 1 May 1995 to 28 April 2005;

| (h) | Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH: from 3 September 1992 to 31 March 2004; Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH: from 1 April 2004 to 17 March 2005; Deutsche Shell GmbH: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005; Shell International Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005; the Shell Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005; Shell Petroleum N.V.: from 1 July 2002 to 17 March 2005; the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH: from 3 September 1992 to 31 March 2004; Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH: from 1 April 2004 to 17 March 2005; Deutsche Shell GmbH: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005; Shell International Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005; the Shell Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005; Shell Petroleum N.V.: from 1 July 2002 to 17 March 2005; the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 17 March 2005;

| (i) | RWE-Dea AG: from 3 September 1992 to 30 June 2002; RWE AG: from 3 September 1992 to 30 June 2002; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

RWE-Dea AG: from 3 September 1992 to 30 June 2002; RWE AG: from 3 September 1992 to 30 June 2002;

| (j) | Total France S.A.: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005; Total S.A.: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Total France S.A.: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005; Total S.A.: from 3 September 1992 to 28 April 2005.

| (27) | As far as slack wax is concerned:






  (a) | Esso Deutschland GmbH: from 22 February 2001 to 18 December 2002; Esso Société Anonyme Française: from 8 March 1999 to 18 December 2002; ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A.: from 20 November 1999 to 18 December 2002; Exxon Mobil Corporation: from 20 November 1999 to 18 December 2002; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(27)

As far as slack wax is concerned:

(a)

Esso Deutschland GmbH: from 22 February 2001 to 18 December 2002; Esso Société Anonyme Française: from 8 March 1999 to 18 December 2002; ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A.: from 20 November 1999 to 18 December 2002; Exxon Mobil Corporation: from 20 November 1999 to 18 December 2002;

| (b) | Sasol Wax GmbH: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Sasol Wax International AG: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Sasol Limited: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Sasol Wax GmbH: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Sasol Wax International AG: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Sasol Limited: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004;

| (c) | Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH: from 1 April 2004 to 12 May 2004; Deutsche Shell GmbH: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004; Shell International Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004; the Shell Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004; Shell Petroleum N.V.: from 1 July 2002 to 12 May 2004; the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH: from 1 April 2004 to 12 May 2004; Deutsche Shell GmbH: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004; Shell International Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004; the Shell Petroleum Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004; Shell Petroleum N.V.: from 1 July 2002 to 12 May 2004; the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited: from 2 January 2002 to 12 May 2004;

| (d) | RWE-Dea AG: from 30 October 1997 to 30 June 2002; RWE AG: from 30 October 1997 to 30 June 2002; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

RWE-Dea AG: from 30 October 1997 to 30 June 2002; RWE AG: from 30 October 1997 to 30 June 2002;

| (e) | Total France S.A.: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Total S.A.: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Total France S.A.: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004; Total S.A.: from 30 October 1997 to 12 May 2004.

| (28) | Following the above recitals, the following fines were imposed:












  (a) | ENI S.p.A.: |
| --- | --- | --- |

(28)

Following the above recitals, the following fines were imposed:

(a)

ENI S.p.A.:

EUR 29 120 000;

| (b) | Esso Société Anonyme Française:
  of which jointly and severally with
  ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A. and Exxon Mobil Corporation: for EUR 34 670 400, of which jointly and severally with Esso Deutschland GmbH for EUR 27 081 600; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Esso Société Anonyme Française:

of which jointly and severally with

ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, B.V.B.A. and Exxon Mobil Corporation: for EUR 34 670 400, of which jointly and severally with Esso Deutschland GmbH for EUR 27 081 600;

EUR 83 588 400;

| (c) | Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG: |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG:

EUR 12 000 000;

| (d) | Hansen & Rosenthal KG jointly and severally with H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH:
  of which jointly and severally with
  H&R ChemPharm GmbH for EUR 22 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Hansen & Rosenthal KG jointly and severally with H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH:

of which jointly and severally with

H&R ChemPharm GmbH for EUR 22 000 000;

EUR 24 000 000;

| (e) | MOL Nyrt.: |
| --- | --- |

(e)

MOL Nyrt.:

EUR 23 700 000;

| (f) | Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A. jointly and severally with Repsol Petróleo S.A. and Repsol YPF S.A.: |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Repsol YPF Lubricantes y Especialidades S.A. jointly and severally with Repsol Petróleo S.A. and Repsol YPF S.A.:

EUR 19 800 000;

| (g) | Sasol Wax GmbH:
  of which jointly and severally with
  Sasol Wax International AG, Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH and Sasol Limited for EUR 250 700 000; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Sasol Wax GmbH:

of which jointly and severally with

Sasol Wax International AG, Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH and Sasol Limited for EUR 250 700 000;

EUR 318 200 000;

| (h) | Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH, Deutsche Shell GmbH, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, the Shell Petroleum Company Limited, Shell Petroleum N.V. and the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited: |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Shell Deutschland Oil GmbH, Shell Deutschland Schmierstoff GmbH, Deutsche Shell GmbH, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, the Shell Petroleum Company Limited, Shell Petroleum N.V. and the Shell Transport and Trading Company Limited:

EUR 0;

| (i) | RWE-Dea AG jointly and severally with RWE AG: |
| --- | --- |

(i)

RWE-Dea AG jointly and severally with RWE AG:

EUR 37 440 000;

| (j) | Total France S.A. jointly and severally with Total S.A.: |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Total France S.A. jointly and severally with Total S.A.:

EUR 128 163 000.

| (29) | The undertakings listed in recitals (26)-(27) were ordered to bring to an end immediately the infringement referred to in recital (2), in so far as they had not already done so and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in recital (2), and from any act or conduct having an identical or similar object or effect. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The undertakings listed in recitals (26)-(27) were ordered to bring to an end immediately the infringement referred to in recital (2), in so far as they had not already done so and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in recital (2), and from any act or conduct having an identical or similar object or effect.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/22

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/14

| Reference number of State Aid | X 223/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Italy |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Friuli-Venezia Giulia
  Mixed |
| Granting authority | Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia — Direzione centrale attività produttive |
| Servizio sostegno e promozione comparto produttivo artigiano |
| Via Carducci 6 |
| 34133 Trieste TS |
| ITALIA |
| diana.prandi@regione.fvg.it |
| http://www.regione.fvg.it |

Reference number of State Aid

X 223/09

Member State

Italy

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Friuli-Venezia Giulia

Mixed

Granting authority

Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia — Direzione centrale attività produttive

Servizio sostegno e promozione comparto produttivo artigiano

Via Carducci 6

34133 Trieste TS

ITALIA

diana.prandi@regione.fvg.it

http://www.regione.fvg.it

Title of the aid measure

Finanziamenti agevolati alle imprese artigiane a sostegno degli investimenti aziendali

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

DPReg 343 del 18.12.2008 (Modifiche al DPReg n. 272 del 12.8.2005), pubblicato sul Bollettino ufficiale della Regione n. 53 del 31.12.2008 — oggetto della presente comunicazione;

DPReg 272 del 12.8.2005 (Testo unico delle disposizioni regolamentari in materia di incentivi a favore del settore artigiano), pubblicato sul Bollettino ufficiale della Regione n. 36 del 7.9.2005.

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

Modification XS 235/07

Duration

1.1.2009-31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 4,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

—

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Regional investment and employment aid (Article 13) Scheme

15 %

20 %

SME investment and employment aid (Article 15)

20 %

—

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://lexview-int.regione.fvg.it/FontiNormative/Regolamenti/D_P_REG_0272-2005.pdf

| Reference number of State Aid | X 224/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Poland |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Poland
  Article 87(3)(a) |
| Granting authority | Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa |
| Al. Jana Pawła II 70 |
| 00-175 Warszawa |
| POLSKA/POLAND |
| http://www.arimr.gov.pl |

Reference number of State Aid

X 224/09

Member State

Poland

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Poland

Article 87(3)(a)

Granting authority

Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

Al. Jana Pawła II 70

00-175 Warszawa

POLSKA/POLAND

http://www.arimr.gov.pl

Title of the aid measure

Dopłaty do oprocentowania kredytów na inwestycje w przetwórstwie produktów rolnych

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 22 stycznia 2009 r. w sprawie realizacji niektórych zadań Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (Dz.U. nr 22, poz. 121)

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

—

Duration

1.3.2009-31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

Manufacture of food products

Type of beneficiary

SME

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

PLN 50,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Interest subsidy

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

—

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

SME investment and employment aid (Article 15)

50 %

—

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://dokumenty.rcl.gov.pl/D2009022012101.pdf

| Reference number of State Aid | X 225/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Austria |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Tirol
  Article 87(3)(c)
  Mixed |
| Granting authority | Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung, Abt. Wirtschaft und Arbeit |
| Heiliggeiststraße 7—9 |
| 6020 Innsbruck |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| http://portal.tirol.gv.at/TirolGvAt/dienststelleDetails.do?cmd=detailsCommit&fachbereichsid=0&orgeseq=300067&cid=1 |

Reference number of State Aid

X 225/09

Member State

Austria

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Tirol

Article 87(3)(c)

Mixed

Granting authority

Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung, Abt. Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Heiliggeiststraße 7—9

6020 Innsbruck

ÖSTERREICH

http://portal.tirol.gv.at/TirolGvAt/dienststelleDetails.do?cmd=detailsCommit&fachbereichsid=0&orgeseq=300067&cid=1

Title of the aid measure

Impulspaket Tirol

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Richtlinie zum Impulspaket Rahmenrichtlinie für die Wirtschaftsförderung des Landes Tirol

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

Modification XS 115/07

Modification XR 68/07

Duration

9.2.2009-30.6.2014

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

large enterprise

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 10,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

—

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Regional investment and employment aid (Article 13) Scheme

10 %

—

SME investment and employment aid (Article 15)

10 %

—

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.tirol.gv.at/themen/wirtschaft-und-tourismus/wirtschaftsfoerderung/wirtschaftsfoerderungsprogramm/impulspaket/

| Reference number of State Aid | X 226/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Austria |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Tirol
  Mixed |
| Granting authority | Amt der Tiroler Lnadesregierung, Abt. Wirtschaft und Arbeit |
| Heiliggeiststraße 7—9 |
| 6020 Innsbruck |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| http://portal.tirol.gv.at/TirolGvAt/dienststelleDetails.do?cmd=detailsCommit&fachbereichsid=0&orgeseq=300067&cid=1 |

Reference number of State Aid

X 226/09

Member State

Austria

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Tirol

Mixed

Granting authority

Amt der Tiroler Lnadesregierung, Abt. Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Heiliggeiststraße 7—9

6020 Innsbruck

ÖSTERREICH

http://portal.tirol.gv.at/TirolGvAt/dienststelleDetails.do?cmd=detailsCommit&fachbereichsid=0&orgeseq=300067&cid=1

Title of the aid measure

Verbesserung von Infrastrukturangeboten in Klein- und Kleinstschigebieten

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Richtlinie zum Schwerpunkt „Verbesserung von Infrastrukturangeboten in Klein- und Kleinstschigebieten“ Basisrichtlinie für die Infrastrukturförderung des Landes Tirol

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

—

Duration

9.2.2009-30.6.2014

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 10,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Direct grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

—

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

SME investment and employment aid (Article 15)

20 %

—

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.tirol.gv.at/themen/wirtschaft-und-tourismus/wirtschaftsfoerderung/infrastrukturfoerderung/infrastrukturangebote/

| Reference number of State Aid | X 867/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Non-assisted areas |
| Granting authority | Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit |
| Prins Clauslaan 8 |
| Postbus 20401 |
| 2500 EK Den Haag |
| NEDERLAND |
| http://www.minlnv.nl |

Reference number of State Aid

X 867/09

Member State

Netherlands

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Non-assisted areas

Granting authority

Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Prins Clauslaan 8

Postbus 20401

2500 EK Den Haag

NEDERLAND

http://www.minlnv.nl

Title of the aid measure

Regeling LNV-subsidies (omschrijving steun: Samenwerking bij innovatie (industrieel onderzoek))

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Regeling LNV-subsidies: artikel 1:2, artikel 1:3, artikel 2:1, artikel 2:32;

Openstellingsbesluit LNV-subsidies

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

—

Duration

1.11.2009-31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

Agriculture, forestry and fishing, Manufacture of food products

Type of beneficiary

SME

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 1,68 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

—

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b))

65 %

80 %

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://wetten.overheid.nl/zoeken_op/regeling_type_wetten+AMVB+ministeries/titel_bevat_Regeling%2BLNV-subsidies/datum_29-10-2009

http://wetten.overheid.nl/zoeken_op/regeling_type_wetten+AMVB+ministeries/titel_bevat_Openstellingsbesluit%2BLNV-subsidies/datum_29-10-2009

---

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/27

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/15

| Reference number of State Aid | X 239/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Spain |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Galicia
  Article 87(3)(a) |
| Granting authority | Instituto Gallego de Promoción Económica (Igape) |
| Complejo Administrativo de San Lázaro, s/n |
| 15703 Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña) |
| ESPAÑA |
| Tel. +34 902300903 / 981541147 |
| Fax +34 981558844 |
| http://www.igape.es/index.php?lang=es |

Reference number of State Aid

X 239/09

Member State

Spain

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Galicia

Article 87(3)(a)

Granting authority

Instituto Gallego de Promoción Económica (Igape)

Complejo Administrativo de San Lázaro, s/n

15703 Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña)

ESPAÑA

Tel. +34 902300903 / 981541147

Fax +34 981558844

http://www.igape.es/index.php?lang=es

Title of the aid measure

IG155: Proxectos de asistencia técnica para la participación en licitaciones públicas internacionales.

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Resolución de 23 de enero de 2009 (DOG no 19, de 28 de enero), por la que se modifican las bases reguladoras de las ayudas a la internacionalización de las empresas gallegas, adaptándolas al Reglamento (CE) no 800/2008, del 6 de agosto, general de exención por categorías.

Resolución de 9 de mayo de 2008 (DOG no 92, del 14 de mayo), por la que se da publicidad a las bases reguladoras de las ayudas del Igape a la internacionalización de las empresas gallegas y se procede a su convocatoria.

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

Modification XS 123/08

Duration

15.5.2008-31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 0,05 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

—

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs (Article 26)

50 %

—

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2009.nsf/FichaContenido/422E?OpenDocument

http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2008.nsf/FichaContenido/1FA26?OpenDocument

| Reference number of State Aid | X 240/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Spain |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Murcia
  Article 87(3)(a) |
| Granting authority | Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia |
| Avenida de la Fama, 3 |
| 30003 Murcia |
| ESPAÑA |
| http://www.ifrm-murcia.es |

Reference number of State Aid

X 240/09

Member State

Spain

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Murcia

Article 87(3)(a)

Granting authority

Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia

Avenida de la Fama, 3

30003 Murcia

ESPAÑA

http://www.ifrm-murcia.es

Title of the aid measure

Programa de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Orden de 27 de enero de 2009 de la Consejería de Universidades, Empresa e Investigación, por la que se aprueban las bases reguladoras y la convocatoria para 2009 de las ayudas del Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia, publicada en el Boletín Oficial de la Región de Murcia BORM no 25, de fecha 31 de enero de 2009 (Anexo 1)

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

Modification XS 108/07

Duration

1.2.2009-31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 6,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

2007ES161PO001

Programa Operativo Integrado de la Región de Murcia FEDER 2007-2013, aprobado por Decisión de la Comisión de 28 de noviembre de 2007 — 4,80 EUR (en millones)

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b))

50 %

20 %

Experimental development (Article 31(2)(c))

25 %

20 %

Aid for industrial property rights costs for SMEs (Article 33)

70 %

—

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.institutofomentomurcia.es/InfoDirectoV3/pdf/Convocatoria_Programas_de_Ayudas_INFO_2009.pdf

| Reference number of State Aid | X 241/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Spain |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Murcia
  Article 87(3)(a) |
| Granting authority | Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia |
| Avenida de la Fama, 3 |
| 30003 Murcia |
| ESPAÑA |
| http://www.ifrm-murcia.es |

Reference number of State Aid

X 241/09

Member State

Spain

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Murcia

Article 87(3)(a)

Granting authority

Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia

Avenida de la Fama, 3

30003 Murcia

ESPAÑA

http://www.ifrm-murcia.es

Title of the aid measure

Programa de implantación de la innovación

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Orden de 27 de enero de 2009 de la Consejería de Universidades, Empresa e Investigación, por la que se aprueba las bases reguladoras y la convocatoria para 2009 de las ayudas del Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia, publicada en el Boletín Oficial de la Región de Murcia BORM no 25 de fecha 31 de enero de 2009 (Anexo 2)

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

Modification XR 66/07

Duration

1.2.2009-31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 1,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

2007ES161PO001

Programa Operativo Integrado de la Región de Murcia FEDER 2007-2013, aprobado por Decisión de la Comisión de 28 de noviembre de 2007 — 0,80 EUR (en millones)

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Regional investment and employment aid (Article 13) Scheme

30 %

20 %

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.institutofomentomurcia.es/InfoDirectoV3/pdf/Convocatoria_Programas_de_Ayudas_INFO_2009.pdf

| Reference number of State Aid | X 242/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Spain |
| Member State reference number | ES |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Cataluna
  Non-assisted areas |
| Granting authority | Centro de Innovación y Desarrollo Empresarial (CIDEM) |
| Passeig de Gràcia, 129 |
| 08008 Barcelona |
| ESPAÑA |
| http://www.acc10.cat |

Reference number of State Aid

X 242/09

Member State

Spain

Member State reference number

ES

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Cataluna

Non-assisted areas

Granting authority

Centro de Innovación y Desarrollo Empresarial (CIDEM)

Passeig de Gràcia, 129

08008 Barcelona

ESPAÑA

http://www.acc10.cat

Title of the aid measure

Línea de préstamos para proyectos colaborativos de R+D

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Resolución IUE/3830/2008, de 17 de noviembre, por la que se aprueban las bases reguladoras y se abre la convocatoria de las líneas de préstamos para proyectos de investigación industrial y desarrollo experimental (R+D). DOGC núm. 5284 de 23.12.2008 (Anexo 1 y apartado 2 del anexo 2)

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

—

Duration

31.12.2008-31.12.2009

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

large enterprise

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 10,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Soft loan, Interest subsidy

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

—

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Industrial research (Article 31(2)(b))

65 %

20 %

Experimental development (Article 31(2)(c))

40 %

20 %

Aid for industrial property rights costs for SMEs (Article 33)

80 %

—

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.gencat.net/eadop/imagenes/5284/08310120.pdf

http://www.acc10.cat/docs/prestamos.doc

| Reference number of State Aid | X 244/09 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Spain |
| Member State reference number | — |
| Name of the Region (NUTS) | Murcia
  Article 87(3)(a) |
| Granting authority | Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia |
| Avenida de la Fama, 3 |
| 30003 Murcia |
| ESPAÑA |
| http://www.ifrm-murcia.es |

Reference number of State Aid

X 244/09

Member State

Spain

Member State reference number

—

Name of the Region (NUTS)

Murcia

Article 87(3)(a)

Granting authority

Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia

Avenida de la Fama, 3

30003 Murcia

ESPAÑA

http://www.ifrm-murcia.es

Title of the aid measure

Programa de apoyo a inversiones tecnológicamente avanzadas en sectores estratégicos, al amparo del Plan de Dinamización

National legal basis (Reference to the relevant national official publication)

Orden de 27 de enero de 2009 de la Consejería de Universidades, Empresa e Investigación, por la que se aprueba las bases reguladoras y la convocatoria del Programa de apoyo a inversiones tecnológicamente avanzadas en sectores estratégicos al amparo del Plan de Dinamización, publicada en el Boletín Oficial de la Región de Murcia BORM no 25 de fecha 31 de enero de 2009 (Anexo 1)

Type of measure

Scheme

Amendment of an existing aid measure

Modification XR 47/08

Duration

1.2.2009-31.12.2013

Economic sector(s) concerned

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Type of beneficiary

SME

large enterprise

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme

EUR 30,00 million

For guarantees

—

Aid Instrument (Article 5)

Grant

Reference to the Commission decision

—

If co-financed by Community funds

2007ES161PO001

Programa Operativo Integrado de la Región de Murcia FEDER 2007-2013, aprobado por Decisión de la Comisión de 28 de noviembre de 2007 — 24,00 EUR (en millones)

Objectives

Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in national currency

SME-bonuses in %

Regional investment and employment aid (Article 13) Scheme

30 %

20 %

Web link to the full text of the aid measure:

http://www.institutofomentomurcia.es/InfoDirectoV3/pdf/Convocatoria_Programas_Estrategicos_2009.pdf

---