# Official Journal C 199/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 199 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 594 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 199

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 594 June 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 199/01 | Commission Opinion of 2 June 2016 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the operation of the Brunsbüttel LasmA radioactive waste storage facility, located at Brunsbüttel in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany | 1 |
| 2016/C 199/02 | Commission Opinion of 2 June 2016 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the dismantling of the KKB nuclear power plant, located at Brunsbüttel in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

2016/C 199/01

Commission Opinion of 2 June 2016 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the operation of the Brunsbüttel LasmA radioactive waste storage facility, located at Brunsbüttel in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

1

2016/C 199/02

Commission Opinion of 2 June 2016 relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the dismantling of the KKB nuclear power plant, located at Brunsbüttel in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

3

---

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 199/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8028 — Fairfax Financial Holdings/OPG Commercial Holdings/Eurolife ERB Insurance Group Holding) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2016/C 199/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8026 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Colombia/RCI Banque/JV) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 199/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8028 — Fairfax Financial Holdings/OPG Commercial Holdings/Eurolife ERB Insurance Group Holding) (
  1
  )

1

4

2016/C 199/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8026 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Colombia/RCI Banque/JV) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2016/C 199/05 | Council Decision of 26 May 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality | 5 |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 199/06 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |
| | European Banking Authority |
| 2016/C 199/07 | Decision of the European Banking Authority specifying the benchmark rate under Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU (Mortgage Credit Directive) | 8 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2016/C 199/05

Council Decision of 26 May 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

5

European Commission

2016/C 199/06

Euro exchange rates

7

European Banking Authority

2016/C 199/07

Decision of the European Banking Authority specifying the benchmark rate under Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU (Mortgage Credit Directive)

8

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2016/C 199/08 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 22 May 2015 in the case of Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State (Case E-17/15) | 12 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 199/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investments) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| 2016/C 199/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 14 |
| 2016/C 199/11 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 15 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2016/C 199/08

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 22 May 2015 in the case of Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State (Case E-17/15)

12

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 199/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investments) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

13

2016/C 199/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

14

2016/C 199/11

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

15

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Commission

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 2 June 2016

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the operation of the Brunsbüttel LasmA radioactive waste storage facility, located at Brunsbüttel in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

(only the German text is authentic)

(2016/C 199/01)

The assessment below is carried out under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, without prejudice to any additional assessments to be carried out under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the obligations stemming from it and from secondary legislation (1).

On 28 August 2015, the European Commission received from the German Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the operation of the Brunsbüttel LasmA radioactive waste storage facility.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 10 November 2015 and provided by the German authorities on 9 February 2016, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the Brunsbüttel site and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case Denmark is 100 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the Brunsbüttel site and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case Denmark is 100 km.

| 2. | The LasmA facility will not be subject to a discharge authorisation for liquid radioactive effluents: during normal operations the discharge of liquid radioactive effluents will not take place. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The LasmA facility will not be subject to a discharge authorisation for liquid radioactive effluents: during normal operations the discharge of liquid radioactive effluents will not take place.

| 3. | During normal operations the discharge of gaseous radioactive effluents is not liable to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that would be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the dose limits laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom). |
| --- | --- |

3.

During normal operations the discharge of gaseous radioactive effluents is not liable to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that would be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the dose limits laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom).

| 4. | Secondary solid radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before shipment to licensed treatment or disposal facilities located in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Secondary solid radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before shipment to licensed treatment or disposal facilities located in Germany.

| 5. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents that may follow the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population of another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the reference levels laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom). |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents that may follow the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population of another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the reference levels laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom).

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form, arising from the operation of the Brunsbüttel LasmA radioactive waste storage facility, located in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, both in normal operation and in the event of the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in a radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State, in respect of the provisions laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom).

Done at Brussels, 2 June 2016.

For the Commission

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  For instance, under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, environmental aspects should be further assessed. Indicatively, the Commission would like to draw attention to the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, as well as to the Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

1

---

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/3

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 2 June 2016

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the dismantling of the KKB nuclear power plant, located at Brunsbüttel in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

(only the German text is authentic)

(2016/C 199/02)

The assessment below is carried out under the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, without prejudice to any additional assessments to be carried out under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the obligations stemming from it and from secondary legislation (1).

On 28 August 2015, the European Commission received from the German Government, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the dismantling of the KKB nuclear power plant.

On the basis of these data and additional information requested by the Commission on 10 November 2015 and provided by the German authorities on 9 February 2016, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the Brunsbüttel site and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case Denmark is 100 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the Brunsbüttel site and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case Denmark is 100 km.

| 2. | During normal dismantling operations the discharges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents are not liable to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that would be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the dose limits laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom). |
| --- | --- |

2.

During normal dismantling operations the discharges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents are not liable to cause an exposure of the population in another Member State that would be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the dose limits laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom).

| 3. | Solid radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before shipment to licensed treatment or disposal facilities located in Germany.
  Non-radioactive solid waste and residual materials in compliance with clearance levels will be released from regulatory control for disposal as conventional waste or for reuse or recycling. This will be done in compliance with the criteria laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Solid radioactive waste is temporarily stored on site before shipment to licensed treatment or disposal facilities located in Germany.

Non-radioactive solid waste and residual materials in compliance with clearance levels will be released from regulatory control for disposal as conventional waste or for reuse or recycling. This will be done in compliance with the criteria laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom).

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents that may follow the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population of another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the reference levels laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom). |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents that may follow the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses likely to be received by the population of another Member State would not be significant from the point of view of health, in respect of the reference levels laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom).

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form, arising from the dismantling of the Brunsbüttel KKB nuclear power plant, located in the land of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, both in normal operation and in the event of the accidents of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in a radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State, in respect of the provisions laid down in the new Basic Safety Standards (Directive 2013/59/Euratom).

Done at Brussels, 2 June 2016.

For the Commission

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  For instance, under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, environmental aspects should be further assessed. Indicatively, the Commission would like to draw attention to the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, as well as to the Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

1

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8028 — Fairfax Financial Holdings/OPG Commercial Holdings/Eurolife ERB Insurance Group Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 199/03)

On 27 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8028. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8028. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8026 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Colombia/RCI Banque/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 199/04)

On 30 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8026. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8026. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 26 May 2016

appointing the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality

(2016/C 199/05)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 provides, inter alia, that the Council should appoint 18 members, as well as alternates, of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality for a period of three years. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 provides, inter alia, that the Council should appoint 18 members, as well as alternates, of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality for a period of three years.

| (2) | Eighteen Member States (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden) are due to nominate members and alternate members for the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Eighteen Member States (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden) are due to nominate members and alternate members for the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019.

| (3) | The Governments of all those Member States have submitted lists of candidates to the Council, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Governments of all those Member States have submitted lists of candidates to the Council,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality for the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019:

GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | Mr Michel PASTEEL | Ms Liesbet STEVENS |
| Czech Republic | Ms Andrea BARŠOVÁ | Ms Lucia ZACHARIÁŠOVÁ |
| Denmark | Ms Kira APPEL | Mr Søren FELDBÆK WINTHER |
| Germany | Ms Christine MORGENSTERN | Ms Birgit SCHWEIKERT |
| Ireland | Ms Pauline MOREAU | Mr John HURLEY |
| Greece | Ms Anna MEGALOU | |
| Spain | Ms Rosa URBÓN IZQUIERDO | Ms Paloma LÓPEZ-IZQUIERDO BOTÍN |
| France | Ms Stéphanie SEYDOUX | Mr Alexis RINCKENBACH |
| Croatia | Ms Helena ŠTIMAC RADIN | Ms Gordana OBRADOVIĆ DRAGIŠIĆ |
| Italy | Ms Monica PARRELLA | Ms Tiziana ZANNINI |
| Cyprus | Ms Kalliope AGAPIOU-JOSEPHIDES | Mr Demetris MICHAELIDES |
| Latvia | Ms Diāna JAKAITE | Ms Agnese GAILE |
| Lithuania | Ms Rita ŽEMAITYTĖ-TACK | Ms Dalia LEINARTĖ |
| Hungary | Ms Zsuzsanna GERBERNÉ FARKAS | Mr Tamás Antal HEIZER |
| Poland | Ms Rita KAMEDUŁA-TOMASZEWSKA | Ms Anna GRĘDZIŃSKA |
| Portugal | Ms Maria de Fátima DUARTE | Ms Teresa Margarida FRAGOSO |
| Slovenia | Ms Maruša GORTNAR | Ms Jasna JERAM |
| Sweden | Ms Lenita FREIDENVALL | Ms Annika MANSNÉRUS |

Country

Members

Alternates

Belgium

Mr Michel PASTEEL

Ms Liesbet STEVENS

Czech Republic

Ms Andrea BARŠOVÁ

Ms Lucia ZACHARIÁŠOVÁ

Denmark

Ms Kira APPEL

Mr Søren FELDBÆK WINTHER

Germany

Ms Christine MORGENSTERN

Ms Birgit SCHWEIKERT

Ireland

Ms Pauline MOREAU

Mr John HURLEY

Greece

Ms Anna MEGALOU

Spain

Ms Rosa URBÓN IZQUIERDO

Ms Paloma LÓPEZ-IZQUIERDO BOTÍN

France

Ms Stéphanie SEYDOUX

Mr Alexis RINCKENBACH

Croatia

Ms Helena ŠTIMAC RADIN

Ms Gordana OBRADOVIĆ DRAGIŠIĆ

Italy

Ms Monica PARRELLA

Ms Tiziana ZANNINI

Cyprus

Ms Kalliope AGAPIOU-JOSEPHIDES

Mr Demetris MICHAELIDES

Latvia

Ms Diāna JAKAITE

Ms Agnese GAILE

Lithuania

Ms Rita ŽEMAITYTĖ-TACK

Ms Dalia LEINARTĖ

Hungary

Ms Zsuzsanna GERBERNÉ FARKAS

Mr Tamás Antal HEIZER

Poland

Ms Rita KAMEDUŁA-TOMASZEWSKA

Ms Anna GRĘDZIŃSKA

Portugal

Ms Maria de Fátima DUARTE

Ms Teresa Margarida FRAGOSO

Slovenia

Ms Maruša GORTNAR

Ms Jasna JERAM

Sweden

Ms Lenita FREIDENVALL

Ms Annika MANSNÉRUS

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 26 May 2016.

For the Council

The President

H.G.J. KAMP

---

(1)  OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 9.

1

---

European Commission

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

3 June 2016

(2016/C 199/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1154 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4382 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77285 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2605 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1050 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2853 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,025 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,44 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3861 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5188 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2902 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5397 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4594 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6683 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6287 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5351 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 322,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,3778 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3468 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4958 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 146,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6261 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,821 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,9088 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,719 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9973 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,8803 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,0110 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1154

JPY

Japanese yen

121,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4382

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77285

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2605

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1050

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2853

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,025

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,44

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3861

RON

Romanian leu

4,5188

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2902

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5397

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4594

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6683

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6287

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5351

KRW

South Korean won

1 322,41

ZAR

South African rand

17,3778

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3468

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4958

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 146,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6261

PHP

Philippine peso

51,821

RUB

Russian rouble

74,9088

THB

Thai baht

39,719

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9973

MXN

Mexican peso

20,8803

INR

Indian rupee

75,0110

---

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

---

European Banking Authority

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/8

---

Decision of the European Banking Authority specifying the benchmark rate under Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU (Mortgage Credit Directive)

(2016/C 199/07)

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE EUROPEAN BANKING AUTHORITY

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (1) (the ‘Regulation’ and ‘the EBA’), in particular Article 8(1)(j) thereof,

Having regard to Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (2), in particular Part B, Section 4, paragraph (2) and Section 6, paragraph (4) of Annex II thereto,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 14(2) of Directive 2014/17/EU the personalised pre-contractual information to be provided to consumers before being bound by any credit agreement or offer has to be provided by means of the European standardised information sheet (‘ESIS’), as set out in Annex II thereto. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 14(2) of Directive 2014/17/EU the personalised pre-contractual information to be provided to consumers before being bound by any credit agreement or offer has to be provided by means of the European standardised information sheet (‘ESIS’), as set out in Annex II thereto.

| (2) | Pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 4, and paragraph 4, Section 6, of Part B of Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU, where the borrowing rate is variable the ESIS must include an illustrative example of the annual percentage rate of charge and an illustration of a maximum instalment amount. Where there is no cap on the borrowing rate and the creditor does not use an external reference rate, the calculation of both of these illustrative examples must be based on a benchmark rate specified by a competent authority or the EBA (the ‘EBA benchmark rate’). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 4, and paragraph 4, Section 6, of Part B of Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU, where the borrowing rate is variable the ESIS must include an illustrative example of the annual percentage rate of charge and an illustration of a maximum instalment amount. Where there is no cap on the borrowing rate and the creditor does not use an external reference rate, the calculation of both of these illustrative examples must be based on a benchmark rate specified by a competent authority or the EBA (the ‘EBA benchmark rate’).

| (3) | The EBA benchmark rate should be simple, easy to use and representative. The specification of the rate by way of a formula should ensure that the rate remains representative over time and should enable due account to be taken of national circumstances. The formula should be limited to a number of publicly available data in order to ensure that it is easy to use and simple. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The EBA benchmark rate should be simple, easy to use and representative. The specification of the rate by way of a formula should ensure that the rate remains representative over time and should enable due account to be taken of national circumstances. The formula should be limited to a number of publicly available data in order to ensure that it is easy to use and simple.

| (4) | The time periods for the underlying rate should follow the time periods set out in Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU for those scenarios where an external reference rate is used for calculating the borrowing rate. Therefore, the EBA benchmark rate should be based on an underlying rate for the 20 years before the ESIS is provided by the creditor to the consumer. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The time periods for the underlying rate should follow the time periods set out in Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU for those scenarios where an external reference rate is used for calculating the borrowing rate. Therefore, the EBA benchmark rate should be based on an underlying rate for the 20 years before the ESIS is provided by the creditor to the consumer.

| (5) | To be representative, the formula should rely on an underlying rate relevant to the Member State in which the ESIS is provided to the consumer. The underlying rate should be the European Central Bank’s (‘ECB’) main refinancing rate for Member States having the euro as their currency, and the national central bank’s refinancing rate (or equivalent national central rate) for other Member States. These rates will produce a benchmark rate which is representative of the local mortgage market; and complete historical data on those rates are available for all Member States. However, since historical data on the ECB’s main refinancing rate are only available from 1 January 1999, the earliest start date of the historical period should be set on 1 January 1999. This earliest start date should apply to ESISs provided in all Member States in order to ensure that the same historical time period will be used across the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

To be representative, the formula should rely on an underlying rate relevant to the Member State in which the ESIS is provided to the consumer. The underlying rate should be the European Central Bank’s (‘ECB’) main refinancing rate for Member States having the euro as their currency, and the national central bank’s refinancing rate (or equivalent national central rate) for other Member States. These rates will produce a benchmark rate which is representative of the local mortgage market; and complete historical data on those rates are available for all Member States. However, since historical data on the ECB’s main refinancing rate are only available from 1 January 1999, the earliest start date of the historical period should be set on 1 January 1999. This earliest start date should apply to ESISs provided in all Member States in order to ensure that the same historical time period will be used across the European Union.

| (6) | The formula should acknowledge that the borrowing rate will in part reflect funding costs, which the refinancing rate information is a proxy for, by also taking into account the lowest underlying rate in the preceding 20 years. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The formula should acknowledge that the borrowing rate will in part reflect funding costs, which the refinancing rate information is a proxy for, by also taking into account the lowest underlying rate in the preceding 20 years.

| (7) | As the formula forms part of an illustrative example, it is sufficient that creditors update the underlying rate on an annual basis. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

As the formula forms part of an illustrative example, it is sufficient that creditors update the underlying rate on an annual basis.

| (8) | In order to ensure that, within each Member State, creditors use the same difference between the highest and the lowest values of the underlying rate, the calculation of the EBA benchmark rate should be done using the same reference date which should be the first working day of each year. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In order to ensure that, within each Member State, creditors use the same difference between the highest and the lowest values of the underlying rate, the calculation of the EBA benchmark rate should be done using the same reference date which should be the first working day of each year.

| (9) | In order to ensure that the illustrative examples reflect local circumstances, the EBA benchmark rate should not be used, where a competent authority has specified a benchmark rate, the benchmark rate specified in this decision should not apply. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In order to ensure that the illustrative examples reflect local circumstances, the EBA benchmark rate should not be used, where a competent authority has specified a benchmark rate, the benchmark rate specified in this decision should not apply.

| (10) | EBA has conducted open public consultation on the draft decision on an EBA benchmark rate, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, |
| --- | --- |

(10)

EBA has conducted open public consultation on the draft decision on an EBA benchmark rate, analysed the potential related costs and benefits and requested the opinion of the Banking Stakeholder Group established in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The benchmark rate referred to in Part B, Section 4, paragraph (2) and Section 6, paragraph (4) of Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU (EBA benchmark rate) specified by the EBA is set out in the Annex.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at London, 21 March 2016.

Andrea ENRIA

Chairperson

For the Board of Supervisors

---

(1)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12.

1

(2)  OJ L 60, 28.12.2014, p. 34.

2

---

ANNEX

The EBA benchmark rate under Annex II to the Mortgage Credit Directive (2014/17/EU)

| 1. | This document sets out the benchmark rate specified by the EBA referred to in Part B, Section 4, paragraph (2) and Section 6, paragraph (4) of Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU (1) (‘EBA benchmark rate’). |
| --- | --- |

1.

This document sets out the benchmark rate specified by the EBA referred to in Part B, Section 4, paragraph (2) and Section 6, paragraph (4) of Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU (1) (‘EBA benchmark rate’).

| 2. | The EBA benchmark rate is to be used by creditors to calculate the illustrative example of the Annual Percentage Rate of Charge (APRC) and the illustration of a maximum instalment amount respectively, under the conditions set out in those paragraphs and for inclusion in Section 4 and Section 6 of the European standardised information sheet (‘ESIS’) as referred to in Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The EBA benchmark rate is to be used by creditors to calculate the illustrative example of the Annual Percentage Rate of Charge (APRC) and the illustration of a maximum instalment amount respectively, under the conditions set out in those paragraphs and for inclusion in Section 4 and Section 6 of the European standardised information sheet (‘ESIS’) as referred to in Annex II to Directive 2014/17/EU.

| 3. | The EBA benchmark rate shall apply only where the competent authority of the Member State has not specified a benchmark rate. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The EBA benchmark rate shall apply only where the competent authority of the Member State has not specified a benchmark rate.

| 4. | The formula to calculate the EBA benchmark rate is:




  For credit agreements for which the ESIS is provided in Member States that have the euro as their currency:



  HR
  = The highest value of the ECB Main Refinancing rate in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.


  LR
  = The lowest value of the ECB Main Refinancing rate in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.


  BR
  = The borrowing rate applicable to the credit agreement during the longest period known at the time of the provision of the ESIS.

  For credit agreements for which the ESIS is provided in other Member States:



  HR
  = The highest value of the national central bank refinancing rate (or equivalent national central bank rate) in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.


  LR
  = The lowest value of the national central bank refinancing rate (or equivalent national central bank rate) in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.


  BR
  = The borrowing rate applicable to the credit agreement during the longest period known at the time of the provision of the ESIS. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The formula to calculate the EBA benchmark rate is:

Formula

For credit agreements for which the ESIS is provided in Member States that have the euro as their currency:

HR
  = The highest value of the ECB Main Refinancing rate in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.

LR
  = The lowest value of the ECB Main Refinancing rate in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.

BR
  = The borrowing rate applicable to the credit agreement during the longest period known at the time of the provision of the ESIS.

For credit agreements for which the ESIS is provided in other Member States:

HR
  = The highest value of the national central bank refinancing rate (or equivalent national central bank rate) in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.

LR
  = The lowest value of the national central bank refinancing rate (or equivalent national central bank rate) in the 20-year period (or the maximum period available if shorter) prior to the date that the creditor shall calculate the difference of (HR-LR) to be used in the formula as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7.

BR
  = The borrowing rate applicable to the credit agreement during the longest period known at the time of the provision of the ESIS.

| 5. | The 20-year period prior to the provision of the ESIS to the consumer shall begin, at the earliest, on 1 January 1999. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The 20-year period prior to the provision of the ESIS to the consumer shall begin, at the earliest, on 1 January 1999.

| 6. | The calculation of (HR-LR) shall be carried out once every calendar year, on its first working day, with the exception of the year of the entry into force of the MCD, when the calculation shall be carried out on 21 March 2016. The calculation shall be used for the ESISs provided to consumers during the same calendar year. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The calculation of (HR-LR) shall be carried out once every calendar year, on its first working day, with the exception of the year of the entry into force of the MCD, when the calculation shall be carried out on 21 March 2016. The calculation shall be used for the ESISs provided to consumers during the same calendar year.

| 7. | The variables HR and LR are based on the underlying rates that apply in the Member State in which the creditor provides the ESIS to the consumer.

  HR and LR — the relevant national central bank refinancing rates or the equivalent rates |
| --- | --- |

7.

The variables HR and LR are based on the underlying rates that apply in the Member State in which the creditor provides the ESIS to the consumer.

HR and LR — the relevant national central bank refinancing rates or the equivalent rates

| 8. | For the purposes of calculating the EBA benchmark rate for an ESIS provided in a Member State, which has a currency other than the euro, the national central bank refinancing rates or the equivalent national central bank rates are as follows:






  Member State | Name of the relevant national central bank rate as at February 2016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bulgaria | Bulgarian National Bank Base Rate |
| Czech Republic | Czech National Bank Repo Rate |
| Denmark | Tomorrow/Next (T/N) Rate, as referenced on the website of the Danmarks Nationalbank |
| Croatia | Croatian National Bank Lombard Rate |
| Hungary | The Central Bank of Hungary Central Bank Base Rate |
| Poland | Narodowy Bank Polski Reference Rate |
| Romania | Banca Naţională a României Monetary Policy Rate |
| Sweden | Sveriges Riksbank Reference Rate |
| United Kingdom | Bank of England Official Bank Rate |

8.

For the purposes of calculating the EBA benchmark rate for an ESIS provided in a Member State, which has a currency other than the euro, the national central bank refinancing rates or the equivalent national central bank rates are as follows:

Member State

Name of the relevant national central bank rate as at February 2016

Bulgaria

Bulgarian National Bank Base Rate

Czech Republic

Czech National Bank Repo Rate

Denmark

Tomorrow/Next (T/N) Rate, as referenced on the website of the Danmarks Nationalbank

Croatia

Croatian National Bank Lombard Rate

Hungary

The Central Bank of Hungary Central Bank Base Rate

Poland

Narodowy Bank Polski Reference Rate

Romania

Banca Naţională a României Monetary Policy Rate

Sweden

Sveriges Riksbank Reference Rate

United Kingdom

Bank of England Official Bank Rate

---

(1)  Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p. 34).

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/12

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 22 May 2015 in the case of Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State

(Case E-17/15)

(2016/C 199/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 22 May 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State on the following questions:

| 1. | Does the field of application of the EEA Agreement, as defined in Article 8 thereof, entail that a Member State of the Agreement has discretion regarding the setting of rules on the importation of raw meat products and is, in this respect, not bound by the provisions of the Agreement and the acts based thereon? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the field of application of the EEA Agreement, as defined in Article 8 thereof, entail that a Member State of the Agreement has discretion regarding the setting of rules on the importation of raw meat products and is, in this respect, not bound by the provisions of the Agreement and the acts based thereon?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, then the question arises whether it is compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/662/EEC that a Member State of the EEA Agreement should set rules demanding that an importer of raw meat products applies for a special permit before the products are imported, and require the submission, for this purpose, of an import declaration, information on the country of origin and production, the type of product and the producer, and the required certificates, including a certificate confirming that the products have been stored frozen for a certain period prior to customs clearance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, then the question arises whether it is compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/662/EEC that a Member State of the EEA Agreement should set rules demanding that an importer of raw meat products applies for a special permit before the products are imported, and require the submission, for this purpose, of an import declaration, information on the country of origin and production, the type of product and the producer, and the required certificates, including a certificate confirming that the products have been stored frozen for a certain period prior to customs clearance.

| 3. | The national court requests the opinion of the Court whether the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council are relevant in answering the second question. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The national court requests the opinion of the Court whether the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council are relevant in answering the second question.

| 4. | Following on from the second and third questions, an answer is requested to the question of whether it constitutes a technical barrier to trade in the sense of Article 18 EEA if an EEA State sets rules under which the importation to that State of raw meat products is not permitted. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Following on from the second and third questions, an answer is requested to the question of whether it constitutes a technical barrier to trade in the sense of Article 18 EEA if an EEA State sets rules under which the importation to that State of raw meat products is not permitted.

| 5. | An opinion is requested on whether it affects the answer to the fourth question, if it is permitted, under the rules of the EEA State of destination, to grant exceptions from the general prohibition referred to in that question. |
| --- | --- |

5.

An opinion is requested on whether it affects the answer to the fourth question, if it is permitted, under the rules of the EEA State of destination, to grant exceptions from the general prohibition referred to in that question.

| 6. | If the answer to the fourth and/or fifth question is in the affirmative, an answer is then requested to the question of in which cases such a prohibition on the importation of raw meat products taking into account, as appropriate, the circumstances described in the fifth question, could be considered justifiable with reference to Article 13 EEA. Also, an answer is requested to the question of what requirements should be made regarding proof in this connection, particularly in the light of the precautionary principle of EEA law. |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to the fourth and/or fifth question is in the affirmative, an answer is then requested to the question of in which cases such a prohibition on the importation of raw meat products taking into account, as appropriate, the circumstances described in the fifth question, could be considered justifiable with reference to Article 13 EEA. Also, an answer is requested to the question of what requirements should be made regarding proof in this connection, particularly in the light of the precautionary principle of EEA law.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investments)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 199/09)

| 1. | On 27 May 2016 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C. (‘Anchorage’, United States) and funds managed by M&G Alternatives Investment Management Limited (‘MGAIM’, United Kingdom) and M&G Investment Management Limited (‘MGIM’, United Kingdom), ultimately controlled by Prudential plc (United Kingdom), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking PHS Group Investments Limited (‘PHS’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 27 May 2016 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C. (‘Anchorage’, United States) and funds managed by M&G Alternatives Investment Management Limited (‘MGAIM’, United Kingdom) and M&G Investment Management Limited (‘MGIM’, United Kingdom), ultimately controlled by Prudential plc (United Kingdom), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking PHS Group Investments Limited (‘PHS’, United Kingdom) by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   For MGAIM and MGIM: MGAIM and MGIM are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Prudential plc, an international insurance group headquartered in London, United Kingdom, and are part of the investment management division of Prudential plc in Europe.
  —   For Anchorage: Anchorage is a New York-based registered investment adviser founded in 2003. The firm manages private investment funds across the credit, special situations and illiquid investment markets of North America and Europe, with particular focus on defaulted and leveraged issuers.
  —   For PHS: PHS is a United Kingdom-based workplace services provider specialised in hygiene services and supplies. Its key services include washroom services, matting and floorcare, plant rental, data shredding and compliance testing for business customers. In addition to the United Kingdom, PHS is active in Ireland and Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   For MGAIM and MGIM: MGAIM and MGIM are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Prudential plc, an international insurance group headquartered in London, United Kingdom, and are part of the investment management division of Prudential plc in Europe.

—   For Anchorage: Anchorage is a New York-based registered investment adviser founded in 2003. The firm manages private investment funds across the credit, special situations and illiquid investment markets of North America and Europe, with particular focus on defaulted and leveraged issuers.

—   For PHS: PHS is a United Kingdom-based workplace services provider specialised in hygiene services and supplies. Its key services include washroom services, matting and floorcare, plant rental, data shredding and compliance testing for business customers. In addition to the United Kingdom, PHS is active in Ireland and Spain.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investments, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investments, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 199/10)

| 1. | On 30 May 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Freudenberg & Co KG (‘Freudenberg’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Vibracoustic GmbH (‘Vibracoustic’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 30 May 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Freudenberg & Co KG (‘Freudenberg’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Vibracoustic GmbH (‘Vibracoustic’, Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | Freudenberg is active in seals and vibration control technology, nonwovens and filtration, household products and specialties and others. It mainly supplies intermediate products for further processing or for the manufacture of final goods. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

Freudenberg is active in seals and vibration control technology, nonwovens and filtration, household products and specialties and others. It mainly supplies intermediate products for further processing or for the manufacture of final goods.

| — | Vibracoustic is active in the field of automotive vibration control technology. It supplies passenger vehicle manufacturers, commercial vehicle manufacturers and tier 1 suppliers with components that aim at the reduction of noise and vibrations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Vibracoustic is active in the field of automotive vibration control technology. It supplies passenger vehicle manufacturers, commercial vehicle manufacturers and tier 1 suppliers with components that aim at the reduction of noise and vibrations.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---

| 4.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/15

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 199/11)

| 1. | On 30 May 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings TPG Capital (‘TPG’, United States) and Partners Group (‘Partners Group’, Switzerland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of five shopping centres and retail parks located in Spain and Italy (‘Target Assets’) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 30 May 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings TPG Capital (‘TPG’, United States) and Partners Group (‘Partners Group’, Switzerland) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of five shopping centres and retail parks located in Spain and Italy (‘Target Assets’) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
  —   For TPG: is a private investment firm that manages a family of funds that invest in a variety of companies through acquisitions and corporate restructurings. TPG is based in San Francisco, United States.
  —   For Partners Group: is a private markets management firm. It makes investments in equity and debt of private companies, real estate, and infrastructure projects worldwide. It provides investment services to both institutional and private investors. Partners Group’s headquarters are located in Baar, Switzerland.
  —   For the Target Assets they comprise: (1) Centro Navile Retail Park, in Bologna, Italy; (2) Metropolis Shopping Centre, in Rende, Italy; (3) L’Aljub Shopping Centre, in Elche, Spain; (4) Miramar Retail Park, in Fuengirola, Spain; and (5) Miramar Shopping Centre, in Fuengirola, Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   For TPG: is a private investment firm that manages a family of funds that invest in a variety of companies through acquisitions and corporate restructurings. TPG is based in San Francisco, United States.

—   For Partners Group: is a private markets management firm. It makes investments in equity and debt of private companies, real estate, and infrastructure projects worldwide. It provides investment services to both institutional and private investors. Partners Group’s headquarters are located in Baar, Switzerland.

—   For the Target Assets they comprise: (1) Centro Navile Retail Park, in Bologna, Italy; (2) Metropolis Shopping Centre, in Rende, Italy; (3) L’Aljub Shopping Centre, in Elche, Spain; (4) Miramar Retail Park, in Fuengirola, Spain; and (5) Miramar Shopping Centre, in Fuengirola, Spain.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

---