----

----

I Information

Council

----

EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)

(2005/C 168/01)

Introduction

The drugs phenomenon is one of the major concerns of the citizens of Europe and a major threat to the security and health of European society. The EU has up to 2 million problem drug users. The use of drugs, particularly among young people is at historically high levels. The incidence of HIV/AIDS among drug users is causing increasing concern in a series of Member States. The importance of taking a strong stance against drugs trafficking at all levels and the need for a trans-national and coherent approach in combating drugs trafficking has been reflected in the adoption of the Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of drug trafficking (1). Given the global nature of the drugs problem, the EU takes action by utilising a number of political instruments, such as the dialogue on drugs with various regions of the world. Finding a realistic and effective response to this global problem remains a political priority for the European Union.

In December 2004, the European Council endorsed the EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) which sets the framework, objectives and priorities for two consecutive four-year Action Plans to be brought forward by the Commission. This Strategy is an integral part of the multi-annual programme ‘The Hague Programme’ for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the EU (2).

The Strategy has a number of major aims:

The Strategy concentrates on the two major dimensions of drugs policy, demand reduction and supply reduction. It also covers a number of cross-cutting themes: international cooperation, research, information and evaluation.

The Action Plan proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council with some amendments takes account of its Final Evaluation of the EU Drug Strategy and EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000–2004) (3). It targets in particular those areas that the evaluation highlighted as needing further progress. It reiterates a number of essential objectives that were not reached under the previous Action Plan. The Commission has also carried out an initial consultation of civil society on future policy through a dedicated web site. Such consultation will be significantly expanded by the Commission during the course of the Action Plan to include a wide range of representatives of civil society across the EU in a dialogue on how best to deal with drugs issues.

In terms of the ultimate goal it should be clearly understood that the Strategy and Action Plan are not an end in themselves; even if all the objectives they contain are reached we must conclude that they have failed if the result is not a measurable reduction of the drugs problem in our societies. The citizens of Europe expect this. The ultimate aim of the Action Plan is to significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social harm and health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs. It aims to provide a framework for a balanced approach to reducing both supply and demand through a number of specific actions.

These have been chosen on the basis of the following criteria:

In terms of methodology, the Commission and the Council have designed this Action Plan not as a static list of political objectives, but as a dynamic policy instrument. It follows the structure and the objectives of the Strategy and focuses on concrete results in specific priority areas. Assessment tools and indicators have been introduced for each action. These have been drawn up with the help of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol, who will help the Commission to keep track of implementation of the Action Plan. On this basis the Commission will publish an annual report and, if necessary, propose adjustments.

Responsibility for implementation of actions and deadlines are clearly indicated in the Plan. To keep implementation on track, targets whose deadlines have passed or are unlikely to be met will be subject to recommendations for their implementation or identification of failure to implement. The Commission will carry out an impact assessment in 2008 in view of proposing a second Action Plan for 2009-2012. A final evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans will be carried out by the Commission in 2012. These evaluations will go beyond the strict confines of the Action Plan and will include, on the basis of the work of the EMCDDA and Europol, a general view of the evolution of the drugs situation in Europe.

This Action Plan is ambitious in its objectives but it matches the serious nature of the issues confronting EU citizens. It respects the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and leaves full scope for local, regional, national and transnational actions, while at the same time encouraging all actors to examine how these actions can be mutually supportive and contribute towards achieving the objectives of the EU Drug Strategy.

----

(1)OJ L 335 of 11.11.2004; evaluation report to be submitted by the Commission by 12 May 2009 at the latest in the framework of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2009-2012.

(2)  Point 2.8 European Union Strategy on Drugs: ‘The European Council underlines the importance of addressing the drugs problem in a comprehensive, balanced and multidisciplinary approach between the policy of prevention, assistance and rehabilitation of drug dependence, the policy of combating illegal drug trafficking and precursors and money laundering, including the strengthening of international cooperation. The European Strategy on Drugs 2005-2012 will be added to the programme after its adoption by the European council in December 2004’.

(3)  COM(2004) 707 final.

(4)  Action to be completed by the end of the year indicated at the latest.

(5)  Presidency = PRES.

(6)  Member States = MS.

(7)  Commission = COM.

(8)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the lead MS for the project, unless otherwise agreed.

(9)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the lead MS for the project, unless otherwise agreed.

(10)  MS report in cooperation with the Commission and Europol.

(11)  otherwise agreed.

(12)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the Member States.

(13)  Relevant data in relation to the assessment tool/indicator to be provided by the lead MS for the project, unless otherwise agreed.

(14)  Eurojust to cooperate with the candidate countries through nomination of contact points and consideration of cooperation agreements in line with the Council conclusions on Eurojust of 2 December 2004.

(15)  The Dublin Group comprises the EU Member States/European Commission and five other countries. The EU Member States/European Commission do not therefore have exclusive ownership of their recommendations.

----

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 July 2005

(2005/C 168/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

Notice to users of controlled substances in the European Union allowed for essential uses in the Community in 2006 under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ‘substances that deplete the ozone layer’ (1)

(2005/C 168/03)

This notice concerns the following substances:

This notice is addressed to users that intend to:

Controlled substances for essential uses may be obtained from production within the Community and, if necessary, by import from sources outside the Community.

Decision IV/25 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer sets out criteria and a procedure for determining ‘essential uses’ for which continued production and consumption is allowed after phase-out.

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000, as amended in Regulation (EC) No 2038/2000, requires the determination of quantities for essential uses of the abovementioned controlled substances which may be permitted in the Community in 2006, in accordance with Decision IV/25 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

The Parties to the Montreal Protocol may take a Decision in December 2005 that authorises the maximum levels of production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of CFCs in 2006 for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases as specified in Annex I, subject to the conditions established by the Meeting of the Parties in paragraph 2 of its Decision VII/28.

In accordance with Decision X/19 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, the purity of controlled substances for laboratory purposes should be at least 99,0 % for 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 99,5 % for CFCs and carbon tetrachloride. These high purity substances and mixtures containing controlled substances shall be supplied only in re-closable containers or high pressure cylinders smaller than three litres or in 10 millilitre or smaller glass ampoules, marked clearly as substances that deplete the ozone layer, restricted to laboratory use and analytical purposes and specifying that used or surplus substances should be collected and recycled, if practical. The material should be destroyed following the procedures described in Article 16(1) of the Regulation if recycling is not practical.

Decision XV/8 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol authorises the production and consumption necessary to satisfy essential uses of controlled substances listed in Annexes A, B and C (Group II and III substances) of the Montreal Protocol for laboratory and analytical uses as listed in Annex IV to the report of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties, subject to the conditions set out in Annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties.

Currently there are no exemptions permitted in the Montreal Protocol for the use of methyl bromide for laboratory and analytical uses and therefore all uses of methyl bromide in the European Community are not in compliance with the Regulation. Intended users are requested to contact the Commission at the address below, or to contact the ODS website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ods/home/home.cfm for further information under ‘Methyl bromide Laboratory and Analytical Uses’.

The procedures for allocating quantities of controlled substances for the above essential uses carried out under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 and Regulation (EC) No 2038/2000 is the following:

----

(1)OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1 as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2077/2004, OJ L 359 of 4.12.2004, p. 28.

----

ANNEX I

BELGIQUE/BELGÏE

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

EESTI

ΕΛΛΑΣ

ESPAŇA

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALIA

ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI/FINLAND

SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM

----

----

Commission Communication concerning the Financial Report (activity report and financial statements) of the ECSC in liquidation, at 31 December 2004

(2005/C 168/04)

On 6 July 2005 the Commission approved the Financial report for 2004 (document C(2005)2033), comprising the report on the activities of the ECSC in liquidation and its financial statements as at 31 December 2004, drawn up in accordance with Article 3 of Council Decision No 2003/76/EC of 1 February 2003 and Article 6 of the annex to Council Decision No 2003/77/EC of 1 February 2003.

This document can be consulted at:

----

----

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

(Classification of goods)

(2005/C 168/05)

Publication of Explanatory Notes adopted under Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987, on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1)

The Explanatory Notes to the combined nomenclature of the European Communities (2) shall be amended as follows:

Page 227

Insert the following text after the second sentence of the explanatory note:

‘This term also encompasses transparent dresses.’

Page 232

Insert the following text after the explanatory note to ‘6112 11 00 to 6112 19 00’:

See the HS Explanatory Notes to heading 6112, (C), mentioning that heading 6112 includes inter alia swimming shorts and trunks, whether or not elastic.

Swimming shorts are garments which, because of their general appearance, cut and nature of fabric, are intended to be worn solely or mainly as swimwear and not as “shorts” of heading 6103 or 6104. In general they are entirely or mainly made of man-made fibres.

Page 238

Insert the following text after the heading text of ‘6211’:

See the HS Explanatory Notes to heading 6211, 1st paragraph.

The Explanatory Notes to subheadings 6112 31 10 to 6112 49 90 apply, mutatis mutandis.’

----

(1)OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 493/2005 (OJ L 82, 31.3.2005, p. 1).

(2)OJ C 256, 23.10.2002, p. 1.

----

----

Notice to proposed exporters from the European Union in 2006 of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ‘substances that deplete the ozone layer’ (1)

(2005/C 168/06)

This Notice is addressed to undertakings that intend to export the following substances from the European Union during the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006.

Exports of chlorofluorocarbons, other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and hydrobromofluorocarbons and bromochloromethane or products and equipment, other than personal effects containing those substances or whose continuing function relies on the supply of these substances, are prohibited. Note that exceptions to this prohibition are exports of:

Article 12 requires the authorisation of exports of the substances listed under Groups I to IX of Annex I to this Notice (cf. also Annex I of the Regulation). Such export authorisations should be issued by the European Commission after verification of compliance to Article 11 (2).

For the purposes of the Regulation, quantities are measured in ODP kilograms to reflect the ozone-depleting potential of the substance (3).

A user that wishes to export controlled substances listed under Group I to IX of Annex 1 of this Notice for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006, should make itself known to the European Commission, preferably no later than 2 September 2005.

Other applicants that have been issued with an export authorisation in 2005 should complete and submit the relevant form(s) according to the export substance(s) on the ODS website http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ods/index.htm in order to receive an Export Authorisation Number (EAN).

A copy of the application should also be sent to the competent authority of the Member State (cf. Annex II).

An EAN will be provided and the applicant notified providing the application meets the eligibility criteria for an Export Authorisation Number. A user may export the controlled substances listed in Annex I to this Notice during the course of 2006 only if it is in possession of an EAN issued by the European Commission. The European Commission reserves the right to withhold issuing an EAN where it is not satisfied with the information provided.

----

(1)OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1 as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2077/2004, OJ L 359 of 4.12.2004, p. 28.

(2)  Amended by Regulation (EC) 1804/2003, published in OJ L 265 of 16 October 2003, p. 1.

(3)  For mixtures: only the quantity of the controlled substances in the mixture should be included in the quantity. 1,1,1-trichloroethane is always put on the market with stabilisers. Exporters should establish from their supplier what is the percentage of stabiliser to be deducted before calculating the weighted tonnage.

----

ANNEX I

Substances covered

----

(1)  These ozone-depleting potentials are estimates based on existing knowledge and will be reviewed and revised periodically in the light of decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

(2)  This formula does not refer to 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

(3)  Identifies the most commercially-viable substance as prescribed in the Protocol.

----

ANNEX II

Belgique/Belgïë

Česká Republika

Danmark

Deutschland

Eesti

Ελλάς

Espaňa

France

Ireland

Italia

Κύπρος

Latvija

Lietuva

Luxembourg

Magyarország

Malta

Nederland

Österreich

Polska

Portugal

Slovenija

Slovensko

Suomi/Finland

Sverige

United Kingdom

----

----

Notice to importers in the European Union that propose to import in 2006 controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on ‘substances that deplete the ozone layer’ (1)

(2005/C 168/07)

----

(1)OJ L 244 of 29.9.2000, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2077/2004, OJ L 359 of 4.12.2004, p. 28.

(2)  Controlled substances or mixtures which are imported in a manufactured product (other than a container used for the transport or storage of the substance) are excluded from the scope of this notice.

(3)  For mixtures: only the quantity of the controlled substances in the mixture should be included in the ODP quantity. 1,1,1-trichloroethane is always put on the market with stabilisers. Importers should establish from their supplier what is the percentage of stabiliser to be deducted before calculating the ODP-weighted tonnage.

----

ANNEX I

Substances covered

NEW SUBSTANCES

----

(1)  These ozone-depleting potentials are estimates based on existing knowledge and will be reviewed and revised periodically in the light of decisions taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

(2)  This formula does not refer to 1,1,2-trichloroethane.

(3)  Identifies the most commercially-viable substance as prescribed in the Protocol.

----

ANNEX II

BELGIQUE/BELGÏE

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

EESTI

ΕΛΛΑΣ

ESPAŇA

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALIA

ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI/FINLAND

SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM

----

----

Communication from the French Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’)

(2005/C 168/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By request of 17 January 2005, Géopétrol SA, a company with registered offices at 9, rue Nicolas Copernic BP 20, 93151 (Seine Saint-Denis) Le Blanc-Mesnil Cedex, France, applied for an exclusive licence, for a period of four years, to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’, over an area of approximately 200 km2 in the department of Seine et Marne.

The perimeter of the area covered by this licence is made up of the meridian and parallel arcs successively joining the vertices of a polygon defined below by their geographical coordinates, the original meridian being that of Paris:

Interested companies may, within ninety days of the publication of this notice, submit a competing application in accordance with the procedure summarised in the ‘Notice regarding the granting of mining rights for hydrocarbons in France’ published in Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 of 30 December 1994, page 11, and established by Decree 95-427 of 19 April 1995 regarding mining rights (Official Journal of the French Republic of 22 April 1995).

Further information can be obtained from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry (Directorate-General for Energy and Raw Materials, Directorate for Energy and Mineral Resources, Bureau of Mining Legislation), 61, Boulevard Vincent Auriol, Télédoc 133, F-75703 Paris Cedex 13, France, (tel. (33) 44 97 23 02, fax (33) 44 97 05 70).

----

(1)OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

----

----

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

State aid No C 16/2005 (ex N232/2004)

Envisaged sale of the Tote to the Racing Trust

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

(2005/C 168/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 1 June 2005 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified the United Kingdom of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned measure.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure 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. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

Procedure

By letter dated 27 May 2004, the UK Government notified the envisaged sale of the Horserace Totalisator Board (‘Tote’) to a consortium of British racing interests (‘Racing’), pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. The notification was on various occasions supplemented, most recently by letter dated 15 March 2005.

Description of the measure

The Tote is entrusted with the provision of so-called pool betting services (subject to a statutory monopoly), but is also active in the so-called fixed odds betting market (in competition with other bookmakers). In the context of a proposal to open the pool betting market to competition, the UK Government intends to abolish the existing statutory monopoly and to privatise the Tote. Given the unusual situation that the Tote is not owned by anyone, the sales process is preceded by a transfer of the Tote's assets to a new entity held by the Government which will afterwards sell the Tote in a closed sales transaction to Racing. The new Tote would, for a transitional period of 7 years, be awarded an exclusive licence for pool betting activities. When acquiring the new Tote, Racing would not pay a price reflecting the market value of the Tote but only 50 % of the so-called ‘fair value’ of the Tote to Racing. This fair value would be established by an independent expert shortly before the sales transaction.

Assessment

Based on the information submitted by the UK Government, the Commission has doubts concerning the compatibility of the envisaged sales transaction.

In line with established Commission practice, the sale of public companies can only be regarded as being free of aid if either the sale is preceded by an open, transparent and unconditional procedure or if the sales price corresponds to or exceeds the market value of the company as established by an independent expert. In the case at issue, the presence of aid cannot be excluded given that Racing is to acquire the Tote at 50 % of the ‘fair value’ instead of paying the full ‘market value’.

The UK Government has maintained that the aid is be compatible under Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty. The Commission has doubts that the aid is necessary and proportionate. As regards aid in favour of the horseracing sector, the Commission has doubts because the UK Government has not demonstrated which activities needed State support and that the aid channelled into the sector was limited to what was necessary. Furthermore, the aid could also benefit the Tote's betting activities and thus lead to distortions on the betting market. Also in this respect, the Commission has doubts about the compatibility because the UK Government has not shown that the aid was necessary to maintain an adequate level of pool betting activities. The UK Government also maintained that the aid was compatible under Article 87(3)(d) EC Treaty. However, the Commission has doubts that the aid resulting from the envisaged sales transaction could be regarded as a measure promoting culture. The aid is not mainly targeted at a cultural product or project.

Therefore, at the present stage of the procedure the Commission has doubts on the compatibility of the envisaged sales transaction with the EC Treaty. Consequently, the Commission has decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

Pursuant to Article 88(3) of the Treaty, the measure may not be put into effect before the Commission has reached a final decision. Furthermore, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom that, having examined the information supplied by your authorities on the measures referred to above, it has decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

I.   PROCEDURE

II.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

III.   BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A.   Parties involved in the envisaged transaction

1.   The Tote

2.   The Racing consortium

B.   Markets concerned by the envisaged transaction

1.   Betting market

2.   The racing sector

IV.   OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE UK GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THIRD PARTIES

A.   Arguments brought forward by the UK Government maintaining that the envisaged sales transaction should be deemed compatible with the EC Treaty

1.   The envisaged sales transaction does not involve State aid to Racing

2.   Even if the envisaged sales transaction involved aid, this aid should be regarded as compatible with the EC Treaty either under Article 87(3)(c) or Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty

3.   The exclusive licence for pool betting

B.   Arguments brought forward by third parties alleging that the envisaged sales transaction could not be regarded as compatible with the EC Treaty

V.   PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

A.   State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC Treaty

State resources

Advantage

Distortion of competition and effect on trade

B.   Compatibility under Article 87(3) EC Treaty

1.   Compatibility assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty

Does the proposed aid contribute to the achievement of Community objectives?

Is the proposed aid necessary to attain these objectives?

Is the proposed aid proportionate?

2.   Compatibility assessment under Article 87(3)(d) EC Treaty

VI.   CONCLUSIONS

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission has doubts about the compatibility of the proposed closed sale of the Tote to Racing. Based on the information submitted by the UK authorities and other interested parties in the course of the preliminary investigation, the Commission has come to the preliminary conclusion that the proposed transaction contains aid. Furthermore, the Commission has doubts that the proposed aid can be declared compatible under Article 87(3)(c) or (d) of the EC Treaty.

Consequently, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, requests that the United Kingdom submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the measure, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It also requests that the UK authorities forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient(s) of the aid immediately.

The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect. It would also like to draw the United Kingdom's attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that, where negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all the necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary, unless this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law.

The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.’

----

(1)  The proposed exclusive licence would be different from the present statutory monopoly in so far as the licence contains certain obligations imposed on the licence holder which do not exist at present (e.g. regarding the scope of pool betting activities and relationship to other operators).

(2)  PwC performed a discounted cash flow valuation for the first ‘indicative valuation of the Tote’. In a final evaluation, the results would be crosschecked against other valuation techniques.

(3)  Covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.

(4)  Bookmakers have to pay a percentage of their profits to the Horseracing Levy Board to finance the racing industry. The Tote's payment in respect of fixed odds betting are similar to other bookmakers whereas the payments for its pool betting operations are settled between the Tote and the Horseracing Levy Board.

(5)  Source: Tote Annual report 2004.

(6)  Op. cit.

(7)  Source: ‘Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill — Regulatory Impact Assessment’, prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, December 2003, p. 6. These figures are based on 1997 data and the Tote's market share as of today is higher (around 5 %).

(8)  Source: Op. cit., p. 5.

(9)  Source: Op. cit., p. 6.

(10)  However, these plans have been postponed at least until 2009, apparently because of difficulties in finding viable solutions for replacing the levy income with commercial revenues.

(11)  As explained above (cf. para. 8), the UK Government maintained that the Tote was, ever since its establishment, run in the interests of Racing.

(12)  The circumstances in which the clawback clause could be triggered would still need to be negotiated with Racing.

(13)OJ 2004, L 134/114.

(14)OJ 2000, C 121/2.

(15)  XXIII report on competition policy (1993), point 402 and further.

(16)  In the introduction to the interim report, PwC states that they were asked to ‘...calculate an updated indicative valuation range of 100 % of the equity of the Tote, which reflects the value of the Tote to Racing.’

(17)  According to that clause, the Government would get a certain percentage of the profits generated by any future sale of the Tote or a significant proportion of its assets.

(18)  For similar reasoning, cf. Commission's decision of 20 January 1999 on the acquisition of land under the German Indemnification and Compensation Act, OJ L 107/21, 24.4.1999.

(19)  Cf. Commission's decision of 20 January 1999 on the acquisition of land under the German Indemnification and Compensation Act, OJ L 107/21, 24.4.1999.

(20)  Cf. Commission's decision of 13 March 2000 regarding the settlement agreement Leuna 2000/Elf/Mider (State aid N 94/98 — Germany).

(21)  In the Commission decision regarding PMU, the Commission considered the betting market to be a European market. The decision points out that ‘While horse-races are organised and run on national racecourses, betting on such races is organised internationally’. The Commission also stated that there was ‘...some competition in the Community market in [the betting] sector, and it can reasonably be stated that there is trade between Member States in the taking of bets, notably through the exchange of television pictures’. See Commission Decision of 22 September 1993 concerning aid granted by the French Government to the Pari mutuel urbain (PMU) and to the racecourse undertakings, published in the OJ L 300, 7.12.1993, pp. 15.

(22)  See e.g. the Commission's decision regarding the Irish ‘Thoroughbred Foal Levy’ (State aid NN 118/02), where the Commission declared an aid scheme pursuing the objective of providing technical assistance to breeders, breeding stock and their foals, market development and promotion of sales of bloodstock as being compatible with the EC Treaty.

(23)  See for example in para. 26 of the Commission's communication on State aid in the field of public service broadcasting, where it is stated: ‘It should be recalled that the provisions granting exemption from the prohibition of State aid have to be applied strictly. Therefore, the notion of “culture” within the meaning of Article 87(3)(d) must be interpreted restrictively.’

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3873 — DAIG/Viterra)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 168/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3873 — DAIG/Viterra, to the following address:

----

(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.3751 — Novartis/Hexal)

(2005/C 168/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 27 May 2005, 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(2) 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.3843 — Macquairie/CDPQ/Yellow Brick Road)

(2005/C 168/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 July 2005, 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.3816 — Apax/Mölnlycke)

(2005/C 168/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 June 2005, 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:

----

----

COMMISSION OPINION

of 1 July 2005

concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste resulting from modifications of Building 131X (Pamela) at Site-1 of Belgoprocess plc in Belgium, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(2005/C 168/14)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

On 6 December 2004, the European Commission received from the Belgian Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste resulting from modifications of Building 131X (Pamela) at Site-1 of Belgoprocess plc.

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

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form resulting from modifications of Building 131X (Pamela) at Site-1 of Belgoprocess plc in Belgium, 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 the radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

----

III Notices

Commission

----

Calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

Thematic priority area ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’

Call identifiers: FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6, FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-7

(2005/C 168/15)

----

(1)OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 1

(3)  Commission Decision C(2002)4789, as modified by C(2003)577, C(2003)955, C(2003)1952, C(2003)3543, C(2003)3555, C(2003)4609, C(2003)5183, C(2004)433, C(2004)2002, C(2004)2727, C(2004)3324, C(2004)4178, C(2004)5286, C(2005)27, C(2005)961, and C(2005)2076, all decisions unpublished.

(4)OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23.

(5)OJ L 248, of 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)OJ L 357, of 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(7)  C(2003)883 of 27/3/2003, as last modified by C(2004)1855 of 18.5.2004.

(8)  The EPSS is a tool to assist proposers to develop and submit their proposals electronically.

----

ANNEX 1

FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6

Call information (Thematic call)

1.   Specific Programme: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

2.   Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

3.   Call title: Thematic call in the area of ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6

5.   Date of publication: 

6.   Closure date: 9 November 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time).

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 381,6 million, broken down as follows:

8.   Areas called and Instruments: Proposals are invited in the following areas, which are described using activity codes only. For the full title and definition of topic, applicants must refer to the Work Programme (Section 1.3 Technical Content). The evaluation of proposals will be based on the full definition of topic as described in the Work Programme. For the topic the instrument to be used is indicated.

SSAs across Thematic Priority 1

9.   Minimum number of participants (2): 

10.   Restriction on participation: None.

11.   Consortia agreements: 

12.   Evaluation procedure: 

13.   Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14.   Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable: 

----

(1)  IP = Integrated project; NOE = Network of excellence; STREP = Specific targeted research project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action

(2)  MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participants may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

----

ANNEX 2

FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-7

Call information (STREPs dedicated to SMEs)

1.   Specific Programme: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

2.   Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

3.   Call title: Call for STREPs dedicated to SMEs in the area of ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’.

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-7

5.   Date of publication: 

6.   Closure date: 9 November 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time).

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 171 million, broken down as follows:

8.   Areas called and Instruments: Proposals are invited in the following areas, which are described using activity codes only. For the full titles and definition of areas, applicants must refer to the Work Programme (Section 1.3 Technical Content). The evaluation of proposals will be based on the full definition as described in the Work Programme.

9.   Minimum number of participants (2): 

10.   Restriction on participation: All consortia should aim at having 30-50 % of the requested EC contribution budget going to SMEs.

11.   Consortia agreements: Participants in STREP resulting from this call are encouraged, but not required, to conclude a consortium agreement.

12.   Evaluation procedure: The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure;

Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously;

The evaluation process may involve ‘remote’ evaluation of proposals;

Applicants may be invited to discuss their proposal.

13.   Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14.   Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable: 

----

(1)  STREP = Specific targeted research project.

(2)  MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

----

----

Call(s) for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

Thematic priority area: ‘Aeronautics and Space’, ‘Sustainable Energy Systems’ and ‘Sustainable Surface Transport’

Call identifier: FP6-2005-TREN-4-Aero/FP6-2005-TREN-4

(2005/C 168/16)

----

(1)OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 24, 29.10.2002, p. 1

(3)  Commission Decision C(2002)4789, as modified by C(2003)577, C(2003)955, C(2003)1952, C(2003)343, C(2003)3555, C(2003)4609, C(2003)5183, C(2004)433, C(2004)2002, C(2004)2727, C(2004)324, C(2004)4178, C(2004)5286, C(2005)27, C(2005)961, and C(2005)2076, all decisions unpublished.

(4)OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23.

(5)OJ L 248, of 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)OJ L 357, of 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(7)  C(2003)883 of 27.3.2003, as last modified by C(2004)1855 of 18.5.2004.

(8)  The EPSS is a tool to assist proposers to develop and submit their proposals electronically.

----

ANNEX

1.   Specific Programme: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area

2.   Activities: 

3.   Call title: Periodic call in the area of ‘Aeronautics and Space’, ‘Sustainable energy systems’ and ‘Sustainable surface transport’.

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2005-TREN-4-Aero (for ‘Aeronautics and Space’)/FP6-2005-TREN-4 (for ‘Sustainable energy systems’ and ‘Sustainable surface transport’).

5.   Date of publication: 8 July 2005.

6.   Closure date(s): 4 November 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time) (for ‘Aeronautics and Space’) and 22 December 2005 at 17.00 (Brussels local time) (for ‘Sustainable energy systems’ and ‘Sustainable surface transport’).

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 214 million, broken down as follows

‘Aeronautics and space’: EUR 53 million

‘Sustainable energy systems’: EUR 125 million

‘Sustainable surface transport’: EUR 36 million

8.   Areas called and Instruments: 

9.   Minimum number of participants (2): 

10.   Restriction on participation: None.

11.   Consortia agreements: 

12.   Evaluation procedure: 

13.   Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14.   Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable: 

15.   Additional terms: 

----

(1)  IP = Integrated project; STREP = Specific targeted research project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action.

(2)  MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

----