----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

29 November 2006

(2006/C 291/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 391st meeting on 30 may 2005 concerning a Draft Decision in case COMP/A.37.507/B2 — AstraZeneca

(2006/C 291/02)

----

----

Final report of the hearing officer in the case COMP/A/37.507 — AstraZeneca

(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)

(2006/C 291/03)

The draft decision in the abovementioned case gives rise to the following observations:

The investigation was initiated subsequent to a joint complaint lodged on 12 May 1999 by the company Generics (UK) Ltd and the company Scandinavian Pharmaceuticals Generics AB (both referred to hereinafter as ‘Generics’ or ‘the complainant’) under Article 82 EC and Article 54 EEA against the pharmaceutical companies Astra AB (currently AstraZeneca AB) and AstraZeneca Plc (both referred to hereinafter as ‘AstraZeneca’) (1) pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17/62 (2).

The case concerns abuses by AstraZeneca of government procedures aimed at excluding generic firms and parallel traders from competing against AstraZeneca's product ‘Losec’. The abuses consisted in the misuse of the patent system by knowingly making misrepresentations to patent offices with a view to extending the basic patent protection for Losec as well as in the misuse of the system for authorising the marketing of medicines by deregistering the original capsule version of Losec in selected countries with a view to preventing the authorisation of generic versions of Losec as well as excluding parallel trade.

A Statement of Objections was sent to AstraZeneca on 29 July 2003 in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation No 2842/98 (3). At the same time, AstraZeneca was provided with a list of the documents on the Commission file together with copies of accessible documents from that list in the form of two CD-Roms.

AstraZeneca submitted a joint reply on 3 December 2003 (date of receipt) and requested an oral hearing pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98.

I should mention, with regard to their right to access to file, that AstraZeneca took the view that the Commission services were obliged to take notes of their meetings with the complainant and that these notes should have been placed on the file. DG Competition stated that in the final decision they would rely exclusively on the written submissions that the complainant made in connection with the meetings in question. They considered that they were under no obligation to draft notes of these meetings unless such notes would be used as evidence in the final decision. I consider that this point of view is supported by the case-law of the Court of First Instance (joined cases T-191/98 and T-212/98 to T-214/98 — Atlantic Container Line, paragraphs 377, 386, 394-395). On the basis of this case-law, notes that the Commission may — or may not — make of meetings with the complainant constitute internal documents which do not in principle have to be disclosed, unless the Commission relies on them in the final decision.

The complainant was provided with a non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections on 7 November 2003 and with a non-confidential version of AstraZeneca's reply on 8 January 2004. The complainant submitted comments on the Statement of Objections on 16 December 2003, which were transmitted to AstraZeneca.

With a view to enabling two former employees of AstraZeneca to attend the oral hearing, the setting up of the hearing was somewhat delayed. It took place on 16 and 17 February 2004. AstraZeneca and Generics were both represented. Both before and after the oral hearing, on 9 March 2004, AstraZeneca submitted new information, in particular with a view to further responding to matters raised at the oral hearing.

By letter of 23 November 2004 the Commission then afforded AstraZeneca the opportunity to comment on a number of factual elements and considerations not explicitly mentioned in the Statement of Objections to which the Commission could refer in the final decision against AstraZeneca (‘letter of facts’). Upon request, I extended the delay for commenting on this letter of facts to 13 January 2005. Furthermore, I ensured that AstraZeneca was provided with all additional non-confidential documents that had been placed on the Commission's case file subsequent to the issuance of the Statement of Objections. AstraZeneca provided its observations on the letter of facts by letter of 21 January 2005.

It is my opinion that the draft decision only contains objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard of all participants to the procedure have been respected in this case.

Brussels, 31 May 2005

Serge DURANDE

----

(1)  With effect from 6 April 1999, Astra AB merged with Zeneca Group Plc to form the United Kingdom company AstraZeneca Plc.

(2)  Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204)

(3)  Regulation No 2842/98/EEC of the Commission of 22 December 1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under Article 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 354, 30.12.1998, pp. 18-21).

----

----

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

State aid No C 39/06 (ex NN 94/05)

First Time Shareholders scheme

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 291/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 13 September 2006 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

These comments will be communicated to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

In June 2004 the Commission was informed of aid granted by the Shetland Islands Council, the public authority in the Shetland Islands of the United Kingdom, to the fisheries sector which possibly concerned illegal State aid.

Under the scheme for first time shareholders grants were given as contribution to matching own financial contribution for the purchase of a share in an existing or new fishing vessel. Aid of 50 % of the acquisition costs of the share, with a maximum of GBP 7 500 in case of an existing vessel and GBP 15 000 in case of a new vessel, with a maximum of 25 % of the value of the vessel, was granted to persons over 18 years old that do not yet own a share in a fishing vessel. The aid was granted under the condition that the vessel was used for full time fishing for the next 5 years and that the beneficiary retained his share in the vessel for a period of five years from receipt of the aid.

According to Article 88 (3) of the EC Treaty Member State have to inform the Commission of any plans to grant or alter aid. According to the United Kingdom, the scheme has been applied from 1982 until 14 January 2005. However, the United Kingdom confirmed that the scheme was never notified to the Commission, as result of which the aid measure has to be considered as new aid.

Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) does not lay down any limitation period for the examination of unlawful aid. However, Article 15 of that Regulation stipulates that the powers of the Commission to recover aid is subject to a limitation period of ten years, that the limitation period begins on the day on which the aid is awarded to the beneficiary and that that limitation period is interrupted by any action taken by the Commission. Consequently, the Commission considers that it is not necessary in this case to examine the aid granted more than ten years before any measure taken by the Commission concerning it. The Commission considers that the limitation period was interrupted by its request for information sent to the United Kingdom on 24 August 2004. Accordingly, the limitation period applies to aid granted to beneficiaries before 24 August 1994 and the Commission assesses below only aid granted by decisions taken between 24 August 1994 and 14 January 2005. According to the information available to the Commission. It seems that during that time approximately GBP 8 000 000 have been granted under the scheme.

The measures appear to be State aid in the sense of Article 87 of the EC Treaty. State aid can be declared compatible with the common market if it complies with one of the exceptions foreseen in the EC-Treaty. State aid to the fisheries sector may be deemed to be compatible with the common market if they comply with the conditions of Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture applicable at the time of granting of the aid (2).

With regard to the aid granted for the acquisition of a share in a used vessel, according to the 1994, 1997 and 2001 Guidelines, the aid may be deemed compatible with the common market when the aid is intended to enable sea-fishermen to acquire part ownership or to replace a vessel after its total loss and the vessel is not older than 20 years and can be used for at least another 10 years. The 2004 Guidelines are more strict and refer to the conditions laid down in Article 12(3)(d) an 12(4)(f) of Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999, which contain additional requirements with regard to the age of the beneficiary and the overall length of the vessel. According to the 1994 and 1997 Guidelines the total amount of aid to be granted may not exceed 30 % of the actual costs of the acquisition of the vessel. Under the 2001 Guidelines this is lowered to 20 %.

At this stage the aid granted for the acquisition of a share in a used vessel seems not to comply with the conditions established by the Guidelines. Furthermore the scheme allows aid up to a maximum of 25 % of the actual cost of the acquisition of the vessel, which would be incompatible with the requirements under the 2001 Guidelines.

With regard to the aid granted for the acquisition of a share in a new vessel, according to point 2.2.3.1. of the 1994 and 1997 Guidelines aid for the construction of new fishing vessels may be deemed compatible with the common market provided that it complies with the relevant conditions of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93. The vessels must be built in compliance with the objective under the Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP) and must comply with the regulations and directives governing hygiene and safety and Community provisions concerning the dimension of vessels. The vessels have to be registered in the fleet register.

Under the 2001 Guidelines reference is made to the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, where it is stated that an entry of new capacity should be compensated by the withdrawal of a capacity without public aid which is at least equal to the new capacity introduced in the segments concerned. Until 31 December 2001, where the objectives were not yet respected, the withdrawal of capacity should at least be 30 % more than the new capacity introduced. Further condition is that the aid may only be granted where the Member State has submitted the information concerning the application of the Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP) as required under Article 5 of that Regulation and has complied with its obligations under Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 concerning the characteristics of fishing vessels, has implemented the arrangements under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 and has complied with the overall MAGP-objectives.

As the scheme makes no reference to the reference level for the size of the fishing fleet nor to the hygiene and safety requirement and there is no obligation for the registration of the vessel in the fleet register, the Commission at this stage has serious doubts on the compatibility of the aid for the acquisition of a share in a new vessel granted in the period after 1 July 2001.

In view of the foregoing analysis the Commission has decided not to raise any objections to this aid scheme as far as it concerns the aid granted for the acquisition of a share in a new vessel granted before 1 July 2001. However, with regard to the aid granted under the scheme for the acquisition of a share in a new vessel after 1 July 2001 and all aid granted for the acquisition of a share in second hand vessels, the Commission has, at this stage, serious doubts on the compatibility with the common market.

In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient.

TEXT OF LETTER

1.   PROCEDURE

2.   DESCRIPTION

3.   COMMENTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

4.   ASSESSMENT

4.1.   Legality

4.2.   Basis for the assessment

4.3.   Used vessels

4.3.1.   Guidelines of 1994, 1997 and 2001

4.3.2.   Compatibility

4.4.   New vessels

4.4.1.   Guidelines of 1994 and 1997

Regulation (EC) No 3699/93

4.4.2.   Guidelines of 2001

Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999

Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002

4.4.3.   Compatibility

5.   DECISION

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. Regulation as amended by the Act of Accession of 2003.

(2)  OJ C 260, 17.9.94, p. 3; OJ C 100, 27.3.1997, p. 12 and OJ C 19, 20.1.2001, p. 7; OJ C 229, 14.9.2004, p. 5.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. Regulation as amended by the Act of Accession of 2003.

(4)OJ C 229, 14.9.2004, p. 5.

(5)OJ C 260, 17.9.1994, p. 3; OJ C 100, 27.3.1997, p. 12 and OJ C 19, 20.1.2001, p. 7.

(6)  Council Regulation (EC) 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and the marketing of its products, OJ L 346, 31.12.1993, p. 1.

(7)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p.10, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 485/2005, OJ L 81, 30.3.2005, p. 1.

(8)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector OJ L 337, 30.12.1999, p.10, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 485/2005, OJ L 81, 30.3.2005, p. 1.

(9)OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 49.

----

----

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2006/C 291/05)

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

SUMMARY

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Application for registration according to Article 5 and Article 17(2)

‘RISO DI BARAGGIA BIELLESE E VERCELLESE’

EC No: IT/PDO/005/0337/26.02.2004

PDO ( X ) PGI ( )

This summary has been drawn up for information only. For full details, interested parties are invited to consult the full version of the product specification obtainable from the national authorities indicated in section 1 or from the European Commission (1).

1.   Responsible department in the Member State:

2.   Applicant group:

3.   Type of product:

Group 1.6 — Fresh or processed Annex II fruit and vegetables — Rice

4.   Specification (summary of requirements under Article 4(2))

4.1   Name: ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’

4.2   Description: The PDO ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’ exclusively denotes the rice product obtained by processing rough rice into ‘whole-grain’, ‘white’ and ‘parboiled’ rice.

The varieties of rice grown are those listed and described below:

In addition to the above parameters, the biometric properties and physio-chemical characteristics identifying and defining the varieties of rice concerned are set out below.

4.3   Geographical area: The defined area for the protected designation of origin ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’ is in the North-East of Piedmont, comprising the following municipalities: Albano Vercellese, Arborio, Balocco, Brusnengo, Buronzo, Carisio, Casanova Elvo, Castelletto Cervo, Cavaglià, Collobiano, Dorzano, Formigliana, Gattinara, Ghislarengo, Gifflenga, Greggio, Lenta, Massazza, Masserano, Mottalciata, Oldenico, Rovasenda, Roasio, Salussola, San Giacomo Vercellese, Santhià, Villanova Biellese and Villarboit in the Provinces of Biella and Vercelli.

4.4   Proof of origin: Each stage of the production process must be monitored by the inspection body referred to in 4.7, according to the provisions set out in the monitoring plan, with all inputs and outputs recorded. This, along with the compilation of specific lists managed by the inspection body of the land registry parcels in which the production, producers, packagers are located, and timely notification to the inspection body of the quantities produced, packaged and labelled ensures product traceability. All natural and legal persons recorded in the lists may be subject to checks by the monitoring body, according to the terms of the production specification and the corresponding monitoring plan.

4.5   Method of production: The product specification states that, inter alia, any fertilisation used must be for the purpose of producing healthy and perfectly ripe produce. The use of nitrate fertilisers and composts or fertilising mixes containing heavy metals is prohibited. Without prejudice to full compliance with the applicable rules governing the use of plant health care, fungicide and insecticide crop treatments must be carried out at least 40 days before harvesting. The seed required to produce the crop must be a seed product certified by E.N.S.E. to guarantee purity of variety, germination quality and the absence of fungal parasites.

Processes of drying rough rice must be carried out using methods that avoid or minimise contamination of the rice hull from any fuel residues and external odours. Indirect heat dryers are preferable, possibly fuelled by methane, LPG or the like.

Rough rice in storage or sold for processing must not have a moisture content of more than 14 %.

When storing rough rice, rice farmers must take all steps to minimise the presence of animal or parasite funguses and abnormal fermentation. At the end of the summer, and in any case before the rough rice is harvested and then stored, the following processes must be carried out in storage barns or units, silos and adjacent areas:

The following treatments of rough rice are permitted:

To prepare whole-grain rice or for further refined produce

Dehusking or pearling — designed to remove the glumellae of rice grain husks, after which the rice is measured.

To prepare white rice

Refining or milling — designed to remove the cellular pericarp layers from the rice grain surface through abrasion. These processes must be carried out to produce a level of refining defined as 2nd grade.

The refining processes must follow methods designed to prevent the grains from displaying micro fractures.

4.6   Link: The production area as defined in 4.3 is made up of one core zone characterised by the difficulty of levelling land due to its particular clay and iron-rich structure, which leads to uneven levels of submersion. The climate is another feature, characterised by rather cool summer months and frequent thermal inversions due to the winds blowing from the mountains. In addition, cold water sources in the area, located at the foot of the Alps, make it the first to be irrigated by mountain springs.

As a result of these characteristics of the production area, a feature of ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’ is that it is highly suitable for cooking, has a superior consistency and low glutinosity. These characteristics are unanimously recognised by consumers and are partly due to lower yields and lower growing cycles than varieties from other areas.

Ever since the early 1900s, rice — a historic crop in Baraggia — also had symbolic use in public events, including sporting events, especially cycling, used by the champions Coppi, Bartali and Magni.

The diversity of Baraggia and its rice was described for about 50 years in the ‘Giornale di Risicoltura’ (journal of rice growing), which was published monthly between 1912 and 1952 by the former Institute for Experimental Rice Growing in Vercelli, which often published technical-scientific articles demonstrating the particular features of the Baraggia area and the rice produced there. In 1931 this Institute acquired a rice producer in the municipality of Villarboit (centre of the rice area in Baraggia) and used it as a research centre for the purpose of perfecting the specific features of production in the Baraggia area. In 1952 this monthly journal gave way to the publication ‘Il Riso’ (Rice), published by the ‘Ente Nazionale Risi’ (National Rice Body), in which several articles mentioned the specific qualitative features of rice produced in this area.

Rice was grown in the area defined in Baraggia in the early 17th century and was also recorded in notarised documents in 1606 in the Municipality of Salussola, which is part of the defined area.

4.7   Inspection body: 

4.8   Labelling: To be eligible for consumption, the product PDO ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’ must bear on the packaging the specific name of the variety grown in the area (not an equivalent, even if authorised under the applicable rules). Various types of processing and packaging are carried out depending on the end market. Packages of PDO ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’ released for consumption must be of the following weights in Kg: 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0 or 25.0 and must be presented in bags, small bags of fabric or plastic that are suitable — in health and safety terms — for containing food products or boxes of various materials provided they are authorised under the rules governing the health and safety conditions for food products.

The following names must be printed on the packaging:

The EU PDO mark;

The logo of PDO ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’, which must be clearly distinguishable on the packaging by the size and colour, together with the PDO mark as above;

the rice mill and husking plant logos, company names and name of variety.

Promotional or misleading information is not authorised.

Products prepared using PDO ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’, even after processing, may be released for consumption in packaging bearing the name of the PDO without affixing the EU logo provided that:

the protected designation product certified as such is the sole component of the product group concerned;

users of the protected designation product are authorised by the holders of the intellectual property right concerned, grouped together in a syndicate and assigned a supervisory role by the Ministry for Agricultural Policy. The syndicate will be responsible for registering them and keeping watch on correct use of the protected designation. In the absence of a supervisory syndicate, these functions will be carried out by the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy, as the national authority responsible for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.

The logo of the PDO ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’ is a circle with three grains of straight, white rice depicted side-by-side at the base, as they are usually presented and visible to the consumer. The colours of the logo are set out in detail in the production specification. At the top of the grains is the tiny gap where the embryo of the rice caryopsis is located before refining.

The white background to the logo contains the image of the Monte Rosa massif. The mountain's glaciers are the source of the water which directly and primarily irrigate the Baraggia rice crops, which produce the rice exclusively designated ‘Riso di Baraggia Biellese e Vercellese’.

In addition to the logo, the top part bears the name ‘Riso di Baraggia’ and the lower part the represented area, Biellese e Vercellese.

4.9   National requirements: —

----

(1)  European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Agricultural Product Quality Policy, B-1049 Brussels.

----

----

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2006/C 291/06)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

----

----

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of okoumé plywood originating in the People's Republic of China

(2006/C 291/07)

The Commission has received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’) (1), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (2). The review is limited to the examination of the product scope.

The request was lodged by the European Federation of the Plywood Industry (FEIC) (‘the applicant’).

1.   Product

The product under review is okoumé plywood, defined as plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm thickness, with at least one outer ply of okoumé not coated by a permanent film of other materials originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the product concerned’), currently classifiable within CN code ex 4412 13 10. This CN code is given only for information.

2.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1942/2004 (3) on imports of okoumé plywood, defined as plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm thickness, with at least one outer ply of okoumé not coated by a permanent film of other materials, falling within CN code ex 4412 13 10 (TARIC code 4412131010) and originating in the People's Republic of China.

3.   Grounds for the review

The applicant has provided sufficient evidence that the scope of the existing measures is no longer sufficient to counteract the dumping which is causing the injury.

The applicant alleges that new product types have appeared on the market such as plywood consisting solely of sheets of wood, each ply not exceeding 6 mm thickness, with at least one outer ply of bintangor, red canarium, kedondong or certain other species, not coated by a permanent film of other materials, falling within CN code ex 4412 13 10, ex 4412 13 90 and ex 4412 14 00. These CN codes are only given for information. These products should be included in the scope of the measures on the grounds that they share the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and end uses as the product covered by the existing measures. Both the product concerned and the new product types should therefore be considered as a single product.

4.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of a partial interim review, the Commission hereby initiates a review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the definition of the product concerned. The investigation will assess the need for the amendment of the scope of the existing measures.

(a)   Questionnaires

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the applicant, to the importers, to the users, to exporting producers in the People's Republic of China and to the authorities of the exporting country concerned. This information and supporting evidence should reach the Commission within the time limit set in point 5(a).

(b)   Collection of information and holding of hearings

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information other than questionnaire replies and to provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within the time limit set in point 5(a).

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in point 5(b).

5.   Time limits

(a)   For parties to make themselves known, to submit questionnaire replies and any other information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

(b)   Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40-day time limit.

6.   Written submissions, questionnaire replies and correspondence

All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as ‘Limited’ (4) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled ‘FOR INSPECTION BY INTERESTED PARTIES’.

Commission address for correspondence:

7.   Non-co-operation

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

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially, and use of facts available is made, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

8.   Schedule of the investigation

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

----

(1)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17.

(3)OJ L 336, 12.11.2004, p. 4.

(4)  This means that the document is for internal use only. It is protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement).

----

----

Value added tax (VAT)

(exempt investment gold)

List of gold coins meeting the criteria established in article 26B(a) (ii) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 As amended by Council Directive 98/80/EC of 12 October 1998 (Special scheme for investment gold)

(2006/C 291/08)

Valid for the year 2007

EXPLANATORY NOTE

----

----

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia

(2006/C 291/09)

The Commission has received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’) (1), alleging that imports of ferro-silicon, originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (‘the countries concerned’), are being dumped and are thereby causing material injury to the Community industry.

1.   Complaint

The complaint was lodged on 16 October 2006 by Comité de liaison des industries ferro-alliages (EUROALLIAGES) (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of ferro-silicon.

2.   Product

The product allegedly being dumped is ferro-silicon originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (‘the product concerned’), normally declared within CN codes 7202 21 00, 7202 29 10 and 7202 29 90. These CN codes are only given for information.

3.   Allegation of dumping

The allegation of dumping in respect of Egypt and Russia is based on a comparison of normal value established on the basis of domestic prices, with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.

The allegation of dumping for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is based on a comparison of a constructed normal value with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.

In view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the complainant established normal value for the People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan on the basis of a constructed normal value in a market economy country, which is mentioned in point 5.1(d). The allegation of dumping is based on a comparison of normal value, thus calculated, with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.

On this basis, the dumping margins calculated are significant for all exporting countries concerned.

4.   Allegation of injury

The complainant has provided evidence that imports of the product concerned from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia have increased overall in absolute terms and in terms of market share.

It is alleged that the volumes and the prices of the imported product concerned have, among other consequences, had a negative impact on the market share held, the quantities sold and the level of prices charged by the Community industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on the overall performance and the financial situation of the Community industry.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the complaint has been lodged by or on behalf of the Community industry and that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a proceeding, the Commission hereby initiates an investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation.

5.1.   Procedure for the determination of dumping and injury

The investigation will determine whether the product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia is being dumped and whether this dumping has caused injury.

(a)   Sampling

In view of the apparent large number of parties involved in this proceeding, the Commission may decide to apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(i)   Sampling for importers

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all importers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in point 6(b)(i) and in the formats indicated in point 7:

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of importers, the Commission will, in addition, contact any known associations of importers.

(ii)   Final selection of the sample

All interested parties wishing to submit any relevant information regarding the selection of the sample must do so within the time limit set in point 6(b)(ii).

The Commission intends to make the final selection of the sample after having consulted the parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample.

Companies included in the sample must reply to a questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(b)(iii) and must co-operate within the framework of the investigation.

If sufficient co-operation is not forthcoming, the Commission may base its findings, in accordance with Articles 17(4) and 18 of the basic Regulation, on the facts available. A finding based on facts available may be less advantageous to the party concerned, as explained in point 8.

(b)   Questionnaires

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the Community industry and to any association of producers in the Community, to the exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia, to any association of exporters/producers, to the sampled importers, to any association of importers named in the complaint, and to the authorities of the exporting countries concerned.

Exporters producers in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia

All such interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith by fax, but not later than the time limit set out in point 6(a)(i), in order to find out whether they are listed in the complaint and, if necessary, request a questionnaire, given that the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii) applies to all such interested parties.

(c)   Collection of information and holding of hearings

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information other than questionnaire replies and to provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence has to reach the Commission within the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii).

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii).

(d)   Selection of the market economy country

In accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, it is envisaged to choose Norway as an appropriate market economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan. Interested parties are hereby invited to comment on the appropriateness of this choice within the specific time limit set in point 6(c).

(e)   Market economy status

For those exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan who claim and provide sufficient evidence that they operate under market economy conditions, i.e. that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, normal value will be determined in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation. Exporters/producers intending to submit duly substantiated claims must do so within the specific time limit set in point 6(d). The Commission will send claim forms to all exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China named in the complaint and to exporters/producers in Kazakhstan who have been included in the sample and to any association of exporters/producers named in the complaint, as well as to the authorities of the People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan.

5.2.   Procedure for assessment of Community interest

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation and in the event that the allegations of dumping and injury caused thereby are substantiated, a decision will be reached as to whether the adoption of anti-dumping measures would not be against the Community interest. For this reason the Community industry, importers, their representative associations, representative users and representative consumer organisations, provided that they prove that there is an objective link between their activity and the product concerned, may, within the general time limits set in point 6(a)(ii), make themselves known and provide the Commission with information. The parties which have acted in conformity with the precedent sentence may request a hearing setting the particular reasons why they should be heard within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii). It should be noted that any information submitted pursuant to Article 21 will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

6.   Time limits

(a)   General time limits

(i)   For parties to request a questionnaire or other claim forms

All interested parties should request a questionnaire or other claim forms as soon as possible, but not later than 10 days after the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(ii)   For parties to make themselves known, to submit questionnaire replies and any other information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

Companies selected in a sample must submit questionnaire replies within the time limits specified in point 6(b)(iii).

(iii)   Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40 day time limit.

(b)   Specific time limit in respect of sampling

(c)   Specific time limit for the selection of the market economy country

Parties to the investigation may wish to comment on the appropriateness of Norway which, as mentioned in point 5.1(d), is envisaged as a market-economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China and Kazakhstan. These comments must reach the Commission within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(d)   Specific time limit for submission of claims for market economy status and/or for individual treatment

Duly substantiated claims for market economy status (as mentioned in point 5.1(e)) and/or for individual treatment pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, must reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7.   Written submissions, questionnaire replies and correspondence

All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as ‘Limited’ (3) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’.

Commission address for correspondence:

8.   Non-cooperation

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

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

9.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, according to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. According to Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional measures may be imposed no later than 9 months from the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

----

(1)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p.17.).

(2)  For guidance on the meaning of related companies, please refer to Article 143 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p.1).

(3)  This means that the document is for internal use only. It is protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement).

----

----

Revision by France of a public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services between Paris (Orly) and Béziers

(2006/C 291/10)

2.   The new public service obligation is as follows:

2.1.   Frequency

The following minimum services must be delivered, excepting public holidays:

On public holidays, at least one outward and one return flight must be delivered.

2.2.   Category and capacity of aircraft used

The service must be operated with a pressurised aircraft having a seating capacity of at least 48.

2.3.   Timetables

From Monday to Friday, the timetables must allow passengers to make the round trip within the day and to spend at least seven hours at their destination, be it Paris or Béziers.

2.4.   Flight bookings

Seats on these flights must be marketed using at least one computerised booking system.

2.5.   Continuity of service

Except in cases of force majeure, the number of flights cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the carrier must not exceed 3 % of the minimum number of required flights in any operating year.

The carrier must give at least six months' notice before discontinuing these services.

Carriers are hereby informed that the operation of air services without regard to the abovementioned public service obligation will result in administrative and/or legal penalties.

----

----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(2006/C 291/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

----

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2006/C 291/12)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4415 — Motorola/Symbol)

(2006/C 291/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

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

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4481 — Onex Corporation/Sitel Corporation)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 291/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

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

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

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4421 — OJSC Novolipetsk Steel/Duferco/JV)

(2006/C 291/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 November 2006, 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:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4293 — Nordic Capital Fund VI/ICA MENY)

(2006/C 291/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 September 2006, 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:

----

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

----

Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement

(2006/C 291/17)

1.   INTRODUCTION

2.   THE EFFECT ON TRADE CRITERION

2.1.   General principles

2.2.   The concept of ‘trade between Contracting Parties’

2.3.   The notion ‘may affect’

2.3.1.   A sufficient degree of probability on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or fact

2.3.2.   An influence on the ‘pattern of trade’ between EEA States

2.3.3.   A ‘direct or indirect, actual or potential influence’ on the pattern of trade

2.4.   The concept of appreciability

2.4.1.   General principle

2.4.2.   Quantification of appreciability

3.   THE APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES TO COMMON TYPES OF AGREEMENTS AND ABUSES

3.1.   Agreements and abuse covering or implemented in several EEA States

3.1.1.   Agreements concerning imports and exports

3.1.2.   Cartels covering several EEA States

3.1.3.   Horizontal cooperation agreements covering several EEA States

3.1.4.   Vertical agreements implemented in several EEA States

3.1.5.   Abuses of dominant positions covering several EEA States

3.2.   Agreements and abuses covering a single, or only part of an, EEA State

3.2.1.   Cartels covering a single EEA State

3.2.2.   Horizontal cooperation agreements covering a single EEA State

3.2.3.   Vertical agreements covering a single EEA State

3.2.4.   Agreements covering only part of an EEA State

3.2.5.   Abuses of dominant positions covering a single EEA State

3.2.6.   Abuse of a dominant position covering only part of an EEA State

3.3.   Agreements and abuses involving imports and exports with undertakings located in third countries, and agreements and practices involving undertakings located in third countries

3.3.1.   General remarks

3.3.2.   Arrangements that have as their object the restriction of competition inside the EEA

3.3.3.   Other arrangements

----

(1)OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 81.

(2)  The competence to handle individual cases falling under Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement is divided between the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Commission according to the rules laid down in Article 56 of the EEA Agreement. Only one of the surveillance authorities is competent to handle any given case.

(3)  Article 6 of the EEA Agreement provides that, without prejudice to future developments of case-law, the provisions of this Agreement, in so far as they are identical in substance to corresponding rules of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and to acts adopted in application of these two treaties, shall in their implementation and application, be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given prior to the date of signature of the EEA Agreement. As regards relevant rulings by the Court of Justice given after the date of signature of the EEA Agreement, it follows from Article 3(2) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement that the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court shall pay due account to the principles laid down by these rulings.

(4)  EFTA Surveillance Authority Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (de minimis), OJ C 67, 20.3.2003, p. 20 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 15, 20.3.2003, p. 11.

(5)  When the Agreement amending Protocol 4 to the Agreement of the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice of 24 September 2004 has entered into force, Chapter II of Protocol 4 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement will reflect to a large extent in the EFTA pillar Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ L 1, 4.1. 2003, p. 1).

(6)  See e.g. Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64, Consten and Grundig, [1966] ECR p. 429, and Joined Cases 6/73 and 7/73, Commercial Solvents, [1974] ECR p. 223.

(7)  See in this respect Case 22/71, Béguelin, [1971] ECR p. 949, paragraph 16 and EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision in NSF, OJ L 284, 16.10.1997, p 68, paragraph 77.

(8)  See Case 193/83, Windsurfing, [1986] ECR p. 611, paragraph 96, and Case T-77/94, Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten, [1997] ECR II-759, paragraph 126.

(9)  See paragraphs 142 to 144 of the judgment in Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukteten cited in the previous footnote.

(10)  See e.g. Case T-2/89, Petrofina, [1991] ECR II-1087, paragraph 226.

(11)  The concept of appreciability is dealt with in section 2.4 below.

(12)  See in this respect Case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche, [1979] ECR p. 461, paragraph 126.

(13)  Throughout these guidelines the term ‘products’ covers both goods and services.

(14)  See Case 172/80, Züchner, [1981] ECR p. 2021, paragraph 18. See also Case C-309/99, Wouters, [2002] ECR I-1577, paragraph 95, Case C-475/99, Ambulanz Glöckner, [2001] ECR I-8089, paragraph 49, Joined Cases C-215/96 and 216/96, Bagnasco, [1999] ECR I-135, paragraph 51, Case C-55/96, Job Centre, [1997] ECR I-7119, paragraph 37, and Case C-41/90, Höfner and Elser, [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 33.

(15)  See e.g. Joined Cases T-24/93 and others, Compagnie maritime belge, [1996] ECR II-1201, paragraph 203, and paragraph 23 of the judgment in Commercial Solvents cited in footnote 6.

(16)  See e.g. Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96, SCK and FNK, [1997] ECR II-1739, and sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.6 below.

(17)  See section 3.2 below.

(18)  See e.g. the judgment in Züchner cited in footnote 14 and Case 319/82, Kerpen & Kerpen, [1983] ECR 4173, Joined Cases 240/82 and others, Stichting Sigarettenindustrie, [1985] ECR p. 3831, paragraph 48, and Joined Cases T-25/95 and others, Cimenteries CBR, [2000] ECR II-491, paragraph 3930.

(19)  In some judgments mainly relating to vertical agreements the Court of Justice of the European Communities has added wording to the effect that the agreement was capable of hindering the attainment of the objectives of a single market between EC Member States, see e.g. Case T-62/98, Volkswagen, [2000] ECR II-2707, paragraph 179, and paragraph 47 of the Bagnasco judgment cited in footnote 14, and Case 56/65, Société Technique Minière, [1966] ECR 337. The impact of an agreement on the functioning of the EEA Agreement is thus a factor which can be taken into account.

(20)  See e.g. Case E-7-01, Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap Arvid B. Hegelstad and others and Hydro Texaco AS, [2002] EFTA Court Report p 310 and Case T-228/97, Irish Sugar, [1999] ECR II-2969, paragraph 170, and Case 19/77, Miller, [1978] ECR 131, paragraph 15.

(21)  See e.g. Case C-250/92, Gøttrup-Klim. [1994] ECR II-5641, paragraph 54.

(22)  See e.g. Case C-306/96, Javico, [1998] ECR I-1983, paragraph 17, and paragraph 18 of the judgment in Béguelin cited in footnote 7.

(23)  Compare in this respect the judgments in Bagnasco and Wouters cited in footnote 14.

(24)  See e.g. Case T-141/89, Tréfileurope, [1995] ECR II-791, Case T-29/92, Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid (SPO), [1995] ECR II-289, as far as exports were concerned, and Commission Decision in Volkswagen (II), OJ L 262, 2.10.2001, p. 14.

(25)  See in this respect Case 71/74, Frubo, [1975] ECR 563, paragraph 38, Joined Cases 209/78 and others, Van Landewyck, [1980] ECR 3125, paragraph 172, Case T-61/89, Dansk Pelsdyravler Forening, [1992] ECR II-1931, paragraph 143, and Case T-65/89, BPB Industries and British Gypsum, [1993] ECR II-389, paragraph 135.

(26)  See in this respect Case T-86/95, Compagnie Générale Maritime and others, [2002] ECR II-1011, paragraph 148, and paragraph 202 of the judgment in Compagnie maritime belge cited in footnote 15.

(27)  See Case 123/83, BNIC v Clair, [1985] ECR 391, paragraph 29. See also EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision in NSF, paragraph 79, footnote 7.

(28)  See Commission Decision in Zanussi, OJ L 322, 16.11.1978, p. 36, paragraph 11.

(29)  See in this respect Case 31/85, ETA Fabrique d'Ebauches, [1985] ECR 3933, paragraphs 12 and 13.

(30)  See Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P, RTE (Magill), [1995] ECR I-743, paragraph 70, and Case 107/82, AEG, [1983] ECR 3151, paragraph 60.

(31)  See paragraph 60 of the AEG judgment cited in the previous footnote.

(32)  See Case 5/69, Völk, [1969] ECR 295, paragraph 7.

(33)  See e.g. paragraph 17 of the judgment in Javico cited in footnote 22, and paragraph 138 of the judgment in BPB Industries and British Gypsum cited in footnote 25.

(34)  See paragraph 138 of the judgment in BPB Industries and British Gypsum cited in footnote 25.

(35)  See e.g. paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Miller judgment cited in footnote 20, and paragraph 58 of the AEG judgment cited in footnote 30.

(36)  See Joined Cases 100/80 and others, Musique Diffusion Française, [1983] ECR p. 1825, paragraph 86. In that case the products in question accounted for just above 3 % of sales on the national markets concerned. The Court of Justice of the European Communities held that the agreements, which hindered parallel trade, were capable of appreciably affecting trade between EC Member States due to the high turnover of the parties and the relative market position of the products, compared to those of products produced by competing suppliers.

(37)  See in this respect paragraphs 179 and 231 of the Volkswagen judgment cited in footnote 16, and Case T-213/00, CMA CGM and others, [2003] ECR I-, paragraphs 219 and 220.

(38)  See e.g. Case T-7/93, Langnese-Iglo, [1995] ECR II-1533, paragraph 120.

(39)  See paragraphs 140 and 141 of the judgment in Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten cited in footnote 8. See also the judgment in Hegelstad cited in footnote 20.

(40)  See EFTA Surveillance Authority Notice on agreements of minor importance, footnote 4, paragraph 3.

(41)  This decision referred to the definition of small and medium size enterprises laid down in the European Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC (OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4). With effect from 1.1.2005 this recommendation has been replaced by Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36, incorporated into the EEA Agreement by EEA Joint Committee Decision of 25 September 2004 No 131/2004 (OJ L 64, 10.3.2005, p. 67 and EEA Supplement to the OJ, 10.3.2005, p. 49).

(42)  The term ‘undertakings concerned’ shall include connected undertakings as defined in paragraph 12.2 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Notice on agreements of minor importance, see footnote 4 above.

(43)  See the previous footnote.

(44)  When defining the relevant market, reference should be had to the notice on the definition of the relevant market for the purpose of competition law within the EEA (OJ L 200, 16.7.1998, p. 48 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 28, 16.7.1998, p. 3).

(45)  See also paragraph 14 above.

(46)  See paragraph 8 of the judgment in Kerpen & Kerpen cited in footnote 18. It should be noted that the Court of Justice of the European Communities does not refer to market share but to the share of French exports and to the product volumes involved.

(47)  See e.g. the judgment in Volkswagen cited in footnote 16 and Case T-175/95, BASF Coatings, [1999] ECR II-1581. For a horizontal agreement to prevent parallel trade see Joined Cases 96/82 and others, IAZ International, [1983] ECR 3369, paragraph 27.

(48)  See e.g. Case T-142/89, Usines Gustave Boël, [1995] ECR II-867, paragraph 102.

(49)  Horizontal cooperation agreements are dealt with in the EFTA Surveillance Authority Notice on Guidelines on the applicability of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to horizontal cooperation agreements (OJ C 266, 31.10.2002, p. 1 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 55, 31.10.2002, p. 1). Those guidelines deal with the substantive competition assessment of various types of agreements but do not deal with the effect on trade issue.

(50)  See the act referred to in point 1 of Annex XIV to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EEC) No 139/2004) on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation), OJ, L 24, 29.1.2004, p.1 (as incorporated into the EEA Agreement by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 78/2004 of 4 June 2004, OJ L 219, 19.6.2004, p. 13 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 32, 19.6.2004, p. 1).

(51)  The Commission has issued a Notice on the concept of full-function joint ventures under the Merger Regulation, OJ C 66, 2.3.1998, p. 1, which gives guidance on the scope of this concept. The EFTA Surveillance Authority has so far not adopted any notices in the field of concentrations. However, the Authority applies the principles set out in the Commission merger notices whenever relevant.

(52)  See e.g. the Commission Decision in Ford/Volkswagen, OJ L 20, 28.1.1993, p. 14.

(53)  See in this respect paragraph 146 of the Compagnie Générale Maritime judgment cited in footnote 26 above.

(54)  See in this respect Joined Cases 43/82 and 63/82, VBVB and VBBB, [1984] ECR 19, paragraph 9.

(55)  See in this respect Case T-66/89, Publishers Association, [1992] ECR II-1995.

(56)  See in this respect the judgment in Commercial Solvents cited in footnote 6, in the judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 125, and in RTE and ITP cited in footnote 30, as well as Case 6/72, Continental Can, [1973] ECR 215, paragraph 16, and Case 27/76, United Brands, [1978] ECR 207, paragraphs 197 to 203.

(57)  See paragraphs 32 and 33 of the judgment in Commercial Solvents cited in footnote 7.

(58)  According to settled case law dominance is a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to act to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of the consumers, see e.g. paragraph 38 of the judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche cited in footnote 12.

(59)  See for a recent example paragraph 95 of the Wouters judgment cited in footnote 14.

(60)  See e.g. Case 246/86, Belasco, [1989] ECR 2117, paragraph 32-38.

(61)  See paragraph 34 of the Belasco judgment cited in the previous footnote and more recently Joined Cases T-202/98 a.o., British Sugar, [2001] ECR II-2035, paragraph 79. On the other hand this is not so when the market is not susceptible to imports, see paragraph 51 of the Bagnasco judgment cited in footnote 14.

(62)  Guarantees for current account credit facilities.

(63)  See paragraph 51 of the Bagnasco judgment cited in footnote 14.

(64)  See in this respect Case 45/85, Verband der Sachversicherer, [1987] ECR 405, paragraph 50, and Case C-7/95 P, John Deere, [1998] ECR I-3111. See also paragraph 172 of the judgment in Van Landewyck cited in footnote 25, where the Court of Justice of the European Communities stressed that the agreement in question reduced appreciably the incentive to sell imported products.

(65)  See e.g. the judgment in Stichting Sigarettenindustrie, cited in footnote 18, paragraphs 49 and 50.

(66)  See in this respect Case T-22/97, Kesko, [1999] ECR II-3775, paragraph 109.

(67)  See e.g. Case T-65/98, Van den Bergh Foods, [2003] ECR II-, and the judgment in Langnese-Iglo, cited in footnote 38 paragraph 120.

(68)  See e.g. judgment of 7.12.2000, Case C-214/99, Neste, [2000] ECR I-11121.

(69)  See judgment of 28.2.1991, Case C-234/89, Delimitis, [1991] ECR I-935.

(70)  See paragraph 120 of the Langnese-Iglo judgment cited in footnote 38. See also the judgment in Hegelstad cited in footnote 20.

(71)  See e.g. Commission Decision in Volkswagen (II), cited in footnote 24, paragraphs 81 et seq.

(72)  See in this respect paragraphs 177 to 181 of the judgment in SCK and FNK cited in footnote 16.

(73)  See as to this notion the judgment in Ambulanz Glöckner, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 38, and Case C-179/90, Merci convenzionali porto di Genova, [1991] ECR I-5889, and Case C-242/95, GT-Link, [1997] ECR I-4449.

(74)  See e.g. paragraph 135 of the judgment in BPB Industries and British Gypsum cited in footnote 25.

(75)  See Case 322/81, Nederlandse Banden Industrie Michelin, [1983] ECR 3461

(76)  See Case 61/80, Coöperative Stremsel- en Kleurselfabriek, [1981] ECR 851, paragraph 15.

(77)  See in this respect judgment in Irish Sugar, cited in footnote 20 paragraph 169.

(78)  See paragraph 70 of the judgment in RTE (Magill) cited in footnote 30.

(79)  See the judgment in Irish Sugar cited in footnote 20.

(80)  See e.g. the case law cited in footnote 73.

(81)  See in this respect Case 28/77, Tepea, [1978] ECR 1391, paragraph 48, and paragraph 16 of the judgment in Continental Can cited in footnote 56.

(82)  See Joined Cases C-89/85 and others, Ahlström Osakeyhtiö (Woodpulp), [1988] ECR 651, paragraph 16.

(83)  See in this respect Case T-102/96, Gencor, [1999] ECR II-753, which applies the effects test in the field of mergers.

(84)  See to that effect paragraph 19 of the judgment in Javico cited in footnote 22.

(85)  See in this respect Case 51/75, EMI v CBS, [1976] ECR 811, paragraphs 28 and 29.

(86)  See Commission Decision in Siemens/Fanuc, OJ L 376, 31.12.1985, p. 29.

(87)  See in this respect Joined Cases 29/83 and 30/83, CRAM and Rheinzinc, [1984] ECR 1679, and Joined Cases 40/73 and others, Suiker Unie, [1975] ECR 1663, paragraphs 564 and 580.

(88)  See paragraph 22 of the judgment in Javico cited in footnote 22.

(89)  See paragraph 203 of the judgment in Compagnie maritime belge cited in footnote 15.

(90)  See in this respect the judgment in Javico cited in footnote 22.

(91)  See in this respect paragraphs 24 to 26 of the Javico judgment cited in footnote 22.

----

Standing Committee of the EFTA States

----

EMAS

The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

List of registered sites in Norway in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the council of 19 March 2001

(2006/C 291/18)

----

----

Amendments to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice

(2006/C 291/19)

The Agreements amending Protocol 4 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice signed in Brussels on 11 March 2005 and 10 March 2006 entered into force on 27 March 2006.

These Agreements and the updated consolidated version of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice have now been published on the EFTA Secretariat's website.

They can be found through the following links:

----

----

List of marketing authorisations granted by the EEA EFTA States for the second half of 2005

(2006/C 291/20)

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 74/1999 of 28 May 1999, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note, at the meeting on 2 June 2006, the following lists concerning marketing authorisations for medicinal products for the period 1 June — 31 December 2005:

----

ANNEX I

1.   New Marketing Authorisations:

The following marketing authorisations have been granted in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 June — 31 December 2005:

----

ANNEX II

2.   Renewed Marketing Authorisations

The following marketing authorisations have been renewed in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 June — 31 December 2005:

----

ANNEX III

3.   Extended Marketing Authorisations

The following marketing authorisations have been extended in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 June — 31 December 2005:

----

ANNEX IV

4.   Withdrawn Marketing Authorisations

The following marketing authorisations have been withdrawn in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 June — 31 December 2005:

----

ANNEX V

5.   Suspended Marketing Authorisations

The following marketing authorisations have been suspended in the EEA EFTA States during the period 1 June — 31 December 2005:

----