# Official Journal C 60/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.060.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 60 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5529 February 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.060.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 60

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5529 February 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2012/C 060/01 | Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2012/126/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 170/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply | 1 |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 060/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2012/C 060/03 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM — Rapporteur: Ireland | 3 |
| 2012/C 060/04 | Final report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM | 4 |
| 2012/C 060/05 | Summary of Commission Decision of 19 October 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM) (notified under document C(2011) 7434)
   (
  1
  ) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2012/C 060/01

Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2012/126/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 170/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply

1

European Commission

2012/C 060/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2012/C 060/03

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM — Rapporteur: Ireland

3

2012/C 060/04

Final report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM

4

2012/C 060/05

Summary of Commission Decision of 19 October 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM) (notified under document C(2011) 7434)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2011) 7434)

1

5

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 060/06 | MEDIA 2007 — Development, distribution, promotion and training — Call for proposals — EACEA/7/12 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — The automatic scheme 2012 | 9 |
| 2012/C 060/07 | Training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges | 12 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 060/08 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin) (
  1
  ) | 13 |
| 2012/C 060/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 14 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 060/10 | Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No CHAP(2011) 3460 | 15 |
| 2012/C 060/11 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 16 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2012/C 060/06

MEDIA 2007 — Development, distribution, promotion and training — Call for proposals — EACEA/7/12 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — The automatic scheme 2012

9

2012/C 060/07

Training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges

12

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 060/08

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin) (
  1
  )

1

13

2012/C 060/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

14

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2012/C 060/10

Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No CHAP(2011) 3460

15

2012/C 060/11

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

16

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/1

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2012/126/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 170/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply

2012/C 60/01

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of persons that appear in Annex V to Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP, as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2012/126/CFSP (1), and in Annex IB to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 170/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/639/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG K Coordination Unit |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG K Coordination Unit

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 55, 29.2.2012, p. 19.

(2)  OJ L 55, 29.2.2012, p. 1.

---

European Commission

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

28 February 2012

2012/C 60/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3454 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 108,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4355 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84790 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8275 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2050 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4800 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,900 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 289,63 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6988 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1410 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3480 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3580 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2486 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3396 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4332 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6040 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6846 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 513,77 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,1176 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4766 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5710 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 146,01 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0483 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,753 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,0475 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,833 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2873 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2682 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,0390 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3454

JPY

Japanese yen

108,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4355

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84790

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8275

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2050

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4800

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,900

HUF

Hungarian forint

289,63

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6988

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1410

RON

Romanian leu

4,3480

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3580

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2486

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3396

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4332

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6040

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6846

KRW

South Korean won

1 513,77

ZAR

South African rand

10,1176

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4766

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5710

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 146,01

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0483

PHP

Philippine peso

57,753

RUB

Russian rouble

39,0475

THB

Thai baht

40,833

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2873

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2682

INR

Indian rupee

66,0390

---

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

---

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 4 October 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM

Rapporteur: Ireland

2012/C 60/03

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

1.

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

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product market is the market for gas gensets with a power above 0,5 MW. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product market is the market for gas gensets with a power above 0,5 MW.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for gas gensets with a power above 0,5 MW is at least EEA-wide in scope, and probably global. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for gas gensets with a power above 0,5 MW is at least EEA-wide in scope, and probably global.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration will not give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market for gas gensets with power above 0,5 MW based on unilateral effects. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration will not give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market for gas gensets with power above 0,5 MW based on unilateral effects.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration will not give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market for gas gensets with power above 0,5 MW based on coordinated effects. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration will not give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market for gas gensets with power above 0,5 MW based on coordinated effects.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration will not give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition based on the foreclosure of packagers. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration will not give rise to a significant impediment of effective competition based on the foreclosure of packagers.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration is not likely to result in any anti-competitive impact to the detriment of consumers. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed concentration is not likely to result in any anti-competitive impact to the detriment of consumers.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should therefore be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should therefore be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the EC Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

9.

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

---

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/4

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM

2012/C 60/04

On 14 March 2011, following a referral pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation (2), the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking Caterpillar Inc. (the notifying party) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over MWM Holding GmbH. The Commission adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 5 May 2011.

After the initiation of proceedings, the procedure was marked mostly by two events. First, the Commission carried out inspections pursuant to Article 13(4) of the Merger Regulation (3). Second, the Commission decided to suspend the proceedings, as a result of the notifying party's failure to respond to a request for information. The notifying party complained to me about the lack of fairness of the suspension of proceedings, arguing essentially that it did not possess some of the information requested by the Commission and therefore could not provide it, although it had initially offered to the Commission to obtain such information from third parties. The current Mandate of the Hearing Officers does not provide for any decision-making power in such situations. However, as the notifying party asked me to take into account the aforementioned facts in my assessment of the fairness of the proceedings, I contacted the Directorate General for Competition in order to discuss the issue. Ultimately, DG Competition and the notifying party found a modus operandi for collecting a narrowed-down set of information, and the suspension of the proceedings ended when such information was provided. Overall, I consider that the suspension decided by the Commission did not impact the fairness of the proceedings.

On the basis of the additional evidence gathered during the in-depth phase of the investigation, the Commission services concluded that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market, and is therefore compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the notifying party.

The draft decision provides for an unconditional clearance of the proposed concentration. I have not received any complaint about the exercise of the right to be heard from the merging parties. The draft decision does not contain any objections on which the parties have not had the opportunity to make known their views. In view thereof, I consider that the right to be heard of all participants to the proceedings has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 4 October 2011.

Michael ALBERS

---

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

1

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

2

(3)  According to the draft decision, this inspection was warranted: (i) as evidence existed that either one or both of the merging Parties might have provided misleading information/retained information in the context of the investigation; (ii) to verify a possible theory of harm based on coordinated effects.

3

---

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/5

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 19 October 2011

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

(Case COMP/M.6106 — Caterpillar/MWM)

(notified under document C(2011) 7434)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 60/05

On 19 October 2011, the Commission adopted a decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), and in particular Article 8(1) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full decision can be found in the authentic language of the case and in the working languages of the Commission on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address:

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

I.   THE PARTIES

| (1) | Caterpillar Inc. (‘Caterpillar’, USA) is the ultimate parent company of a global diversified group that is inter alia active in the provision of machinery, engines and financial products. It manufactures and sells engines and machinery for a large number of applications (such as marine, petroleum, industrial, agricultural), including gas and diesel fuelled engines and machinery for electric power generation systems. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Caterpillar Inc. (‘Caterpillar’, USA) is the ultimate parent company of a global diversified group that is inter alia active in the provision of machinery, engines and financial products. It manufactures and sells engines and machinery for a large number of applications (such as marine, petroleum, industrial, agricultural), including gas and diesel fuelled engines and machinery for electric power generation systems.

| (2) | MWM Holding GmbH (‘MWM’, Germany) and its subsidiaries produce and sell products, services and technologies for decentralised energy supply using gas and diesel reciprocating engines. MWM sells gensets, co-generation (heat and power) and related products. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

MWM Holding GmbH (‘MWM’, Germany) and its subsidiaries produce and sell products, services and technologies for decentralised energy supply using gas and diesel reciprocating engines. MWM sells gensets, co-generation (heat and power) and related products.

II.   THE OPERATION

| (3) | On 14 March 2011, the Commission received a formal notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Caterpillar acquires indirect sole control of MWM (together the ‘Parties’), by way of a purchase of shares (the ‘proposed transaction’). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 14 March 2011, the Commission received a formal notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Caterpillar acquires indirect sole control of MWM (together the ‘Parties’), by way of a purchase of shares (the ‘proposed transaction’).

III.   THE PROCEDURE

| (4) | The proposed transaction did not have Union dimension but was notifiable in Germany, Austria and Slovakia. Germany requested the Commission to examine the proposed transaction pursuant to Article 22 of the Merger Regulation. This request was joined by Austria and Slovakia. By decisions of 26 January 2011, the Commission decided to examine the proposed transaction since the legal requirements for a referral were met. On 14 March 2011, the proposed transaction was notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The proposed transaction did not have Union dimension but was notifiable in Germany, Austria and Slovakia. Germany requested the Commission to examine the proposed transaction pursuant to Article 22 of the Merger Regulation. This request was joined by Austria and Slovakia. By decisions of 26 January 2011, the Commission decided to examine the proposed transaction since the legal requirements for a referral were met. On 14 March 2011, the proposed transaction was notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation.

| (5) | On 25 March 2011, the Commission received a complaint from a third party in response to a questionnaire regarding the proposed transaction. Several other respondents to the Commission’s Phase I market investigation raised similar concerns. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 25 March 2011, the Commission received a complaint from a third party in response to a questionnaire regarding the proposed transaction. Several other respondents to the Commission’s Phase I market investigation raised similar concerns.

| (6) | On 12 April 2011, the Parties proposed a remedy. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 12 April 2011, the Parties proposed a remedy.

| (7) | By decision of 5 May 2011, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the internal market and initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

By decision of 5 May 2011, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the internal market and initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

| (8) | From 25 to 31 May 2011, inspections pursuant to Article 13(4) of the Merger Regulation took place at premises of Caterpillar in the UK and of MWM in Germany, and were continued at the premises of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

From 25 to 31 May 2011, inspections pursuant to Article 13(4) of the Merger Regulation took place at premises of Caterpillar in the UK and of MWM in Germany, and were continued at the premises of the Commission.

| (9) | During the investigation, the Commission also adopted three decisions pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation. One of these three decisions was addressed to Caterpillar and, pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Merger Regulation, the time limits referred to in Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation were suspended until the receipt of complete and correct information from Caterpillar. That suspension was lifted on 8 July 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

During the investigation, the Commission also adopted three decisions pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation. One of these three decisions was addressed to Caterpillar and, pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Merger Regulation, the time limits referred to in Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation were suspended until the receipt of complete and correct information from Caterpillar. That suspension was lifted on 8 July 2011.

| (10) | The meeting of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations took place on 4 October 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The meeting of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations took place on 4 October 2011.

IV.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A.   The relevant product markets

| (11) | Both Parties are active in the market for gas gensets for power generation both on an EEA and global basis. In addition to this overlap, the proposed transaction gives rise to a number of horizontal overlaps and vertical links. The Commission assessment focused on the market for gas gensets, as this was the market that raised serious doubts in the decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. In addition, the vertical relationship between the market for gas gensets (downstream) and the market for gas bare engines market (upstream) was investigated, as the Commission received a formal complaint as regards this vertical link. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Both Parties are active in the market for gas gensets for power generation both on an EEA and global basis. In addition to this overlap, the proposed transaction gives rise to a number of horizontal overlaps and vertical links. The Commission assessment focused on the market for gas gensets, as this was the market that raised serious doubts in the decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. In addition, the vertical relationship between the market for gas gensets (downstream) and the market for gas bare engines market (upstream) was investigated, as the Commission received a formal complaint as regards this vertical link.

Gas gensets market

| (12) | A reciprocating engine generator sets, or genset, is a device that recombines a reciprocating (i.e. piston) engine with various ancillary equipment, such as an electricity generator, a switching gear, a turbocharger and possibly other equipment (at the customer’s option) to form a standalone electricity generator device. The engine is one of the most significant components of a gas genset, also because the engine’s design and characteristics are crucial determinants of the efficiency, output and emissions of the genset. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

A reciprocating engine generator sets, or genset, is a device that recombines a reciprocating (i.e. piston) engine with various ancillary equipment, such as an electricity generator, a switching gear, a turbocharger and possibly other equipment (at the customer’s option) to form a standalone electricity generator device. The engine is one of the most significant components of a gas genset, also because the engine’s design and characteristics are crucial determinants of the efficiency, output and emissions of the genset.

| (13) | There are a number of parameters by which the gas gensets market can be segmented, namely: (i) fuel used to run the gas genset; (ii) engine speed; and (iii) power output, i.e. the power that can be generated with a gas genset. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

There are a number of parameters by which the gas gensets market can be segmented, namely: (i) fuel used to run the gas genset; (ii) engine speed; and (iii) power output, i.e. the power that can be generated with a gas genset.

| (14) | The Commission’s Phase II market investigation corroborated that, given the high supply-side substitutability, gensets on natural and non-natural gas would form part of the same relevant market. The Commission's Phase II market investigation also showed that the market may be subdivided into high-speed gensets (with speeds generally above 1 000 rpm), and medium-speed gensets (with speed below 1 000 rpm). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Commission’s Phase II market investigation corroborated that, given the high supply-side substitutability, gensets on natural and non-natural gas would form part of the same relevant market. The Commission's Phase II market investigation also showed that the market may be subdivided into high-speed gensets (with speeds generally above 1 000 rpm), and medium-speed gensets (with speed below 1 000 rpm).

| (15) | Moreover, it can now be concluded that high-speed gas gensets with a power below 0,5 MW and high-speed gensets with a power above 0,5 MW are part of different products markets, in particular due to limitations in demand-side substitutability. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Moreover, it can now be concluded that high-speed gas gensets with a power below 0,5 MW and high-speed gensets with a power above 0,5 MW are part of different products markets, in particular due to limitations in demand-side substitutability.

| (16) | Concerning the size classes of 0,5 MW and above, the market data collected in the Commission's Phase II market investigation revealed the following facts: (i) there are no sales worldwide of high-speed gensets with a power above 5 MW; and (ii) multiple genset installations based on smaller gensets compete with single gensets. Thus, there is no need to apply an upper limit to the market because the investigation has shown that competition happens on project size (served by single or multiple engines) and not on genset size. The higher the power requirements from the customers, the higher the substitutability between single and multiple engine projects. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Concerning the size classes of 0,5 MW and above, the market data collected in the Commission's Phase II market investigation revealed the following facts: (i) there are no sales worldwide of high-speed gensets with a power above 5 MW; and (ii) multiple genset installations based on smaller gensets compete with single gensets. Thus, there is no need to apply an upper limit to the market because the investigation has shown that competition happens on project size (served by single or multiple engines) and not on genset size. The higher the power requirements from the customers, the higher the substitutability between single and multiple engine projects.

| (17) | In any event, it is not necessary to establish where this upper bound is located, as it will not affect the competitive assessment of this case. In view of the above, the product market can be defined as the market for gas gensets with a power above 0,5 MW. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

In any event, it is not necessary to establish where this upper bound is located, as it will not affect the competitive assessment of this case. In view of the above, the product market can be defined as the market for gas gensets with a power above 0,5 MW.

| (18) | The Commission's Phase II market investigation confirmed that the geographic market for gas gensets is at least EEA-wide in scope, and probably global. In any event, the Commission can ultimately leave the geographic market definition open since the transaction would not impede competition under either EEA-wide or worldwide markets. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The Commission's Phase II market investigation confirmed that the geographic market for gas gensets is at least EEA-wide in scope, and probably global. In any event, the Commission can ultimately leave the geographic market definition open since the transaction would not impede competition under either EEA-wide or worldwide markets.

B.   Competitive assessment

1.   Unilateral effects

| (19) | The table below results from the market reconstruction obtained from the Commission Phase II market investigation. It is based on sales data in volume (in terms of nominal power of gensets/bare engines) submitted by genset manufacturers pursuant to the Commission’s data request.

  Market shares for high-speed gas gensets (rpm > 1 000) with nominal power > 0,5 MW | EEA sales | Worldwide sales |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |
| Caterpillar group | [10-20 %] | [5-10 %] | [5-10 %] | [20-30 %] | [10-20 %] | [10-20 %] |
| MWM | [10-20 %] | [10-20 %] | [20-30 %] | [5-10 %] | [10-20 %] | [10-20 %] |
| Combined entity | [20-30 %] | [20-30 %] | [30-40 %] | [30-40 %] | [30-40 %] | [30-40 %] |
| GE group | [40-50 %] | [50-60 %] | [40-50 %] | [50-60 %] | [50-60 %] | [40-50 %] |
| Cummins | [10-20 %] | [10-20 %] | [20-30 %] | [5-10 %] | [5-10 %] | [10-20 %] |
| Guascor | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [5-10 %] |
| Tognum/Rolls-Royce (2) | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] |
| Mitsubishi | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] | [0-5 %] |
| MAN | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Wärtsila | — | — | — | — | — | — |

(19)

The table below results from the market reconstruction obtained from the Commission Phase II market investigation. It is based on sales data in volume (in terms of nominal power of gensets/bare engines) submitted by genset manufacturers pursuant to the Commission’s data request.

Market shares for high-speed gas gensets (rpm > 1 000) with nominal power > 0,5 MW

EEA sales

Worldwide sales

2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

Caterpillar group

[10-20 %]

[5-10 %]

[5-10 %]

[20-30 %]

[10-20 %]

[10-20 %]

MWM

[10-20 %]

[10-20 %]

[20-30 %]

[5-10 %]

[10-20 %]

[10-20 %]

Combined entity

[20-30 %]

[20-30 %]

[30-40 %]

[30-40 %]

[30-40 %]

[30-40 %]

GE group

[40-50 %]

[50-60 %]

[40-50 %]

[50-60 %]

[50-60 %]

[40-50 %]

Cummins

[10-20 %]

[10-20 %]

[20-30 %]

[5-10 %]

[5-10 %]

[10-20 %]

Guascor

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[5-10 %]

Tognum/Rolls-Royce (2)

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

Mitsubishi

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

[0-5 %]

MAN

—

—

—

—

—

—

Wärtsila

—

—

—

—

—

—

| (20) | Based on the above reconstruction of the market, the Parties’ market shares are more accurate than those included in the decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation and are not exceeding [30-40] % in 2010 for the overall market for high-speed gas gensets with a power band above 0,5 MW. Moreover, a number of significant competitors are present in this market, in particular GE. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Based on the above reconstruction of the market, the Parties’ market shares are more accurate than those included in the decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation and are not exceeding [30-40] % in 2010 for the overall market for high-speed gas gensets with a power band above 0,5 MW. Moreover, a number of significant competitors are present in this market, in particular GE.

| (21) | As discussed in the relevant product market section above, it is appropriate to consider power bands within this overall market. If a market including a number of power bands were to be considered, the Parties would have non-marginal overlaps in the EEA only in the power range between 0,5 MW and 2 MW. In these power bands (other than the 1,5-2 MW), Caterpillar's market shares would always be below 10 % in the EEA. Thus, the increment brought about by the transaction will be moderate. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

As discussed in the relevant product market section above, it is appropriate to consider power bands within this overall market. If a market including a number of power bands were to be considered, the Parties would have non-marginal overlaps in the EEA only in the power range between 0,5 MW and 2 MW. In these power bands (other than the 1,5-2 MW), Caterpillar's market shares would always be below 10 % in the EEA. Thus, the increment brought about by the transaction will be moderate.

| (22) | In the (high speed) power band 1,5-2 MW, the Parties’ combined market shares would be significant ([50-60] % in the EEA) (3). However, [30-40 %] of gensets within the 1,5-2 MW power range are sold as part of multiple genset projects, and [30-40 %] of projects within this power range are served with multiple genset bids. These figures increase with the total power output of the project, i.e. the degree of substitution becomes higher in higher power bands. For instance, more than half of the projects in the 2-2,5 MW class are supplied with multiple genset configurations that include gensets with a power output of 1,5-2 MW. As a result, the prima facie high combined market share in this power band is considerably diluted once considered in terms of project size. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

In the (high speed) power band 1,5-2 MW, the Parties’ combined market shares would be significant ([50-60] % in the EEA) (3). However, [30-40 %] of gensets within the 1,5-2 MW power range are sold as part of multiple genset projects, and [30-40 %] of projects within this power range are served with multiple genset bids. These figures increase with the total power output of the project, i.e. the degree of substitution becomes higher in higher power bands. For instance, more than half of the projects in the 2-2,5 MW class are supplied with multiple genset configurations that include gensets with a power output of 1,5-2 MW. As a result, the prima facie high combined market share in this power band is considerably diluted once considered in terms of project size.

| (23) | The Commission Phase II market investigation also indicated that: (i) the Parties are not close competitors, in particular in terms of products/portfolio, technology/innovation and competing projects; (ii) entrance in the market is feasible; and (iii) sufficient alternative suppliers will remain in the market for gas gensets post-transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The Commission Phase II market investigation also indicated that: (i) the Parties are not close competitors, in particular in terms of products/portfolio, technology/innovation and competing projects; (ii) entrance in the market is feasible; and (iii) sufficient alternative suppliers will remain in the market for gas gensets post-transaction.

| (24) | As a result, no evidence exists that the proposed transaction gives rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market of gas gensets with power above 0,5 MW based on unilateral effects. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

As a result, no evidence exists that the proposed transaction gives rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market of gas gensets with power above 0,5 MW based on unilateral effects.

2.   Coordinated effects

| (25) | The Commission Phase II market investigation indicated that the proposed transaction would not lead to significant changes in the structure of the market nor necessarily increase the future sustainability of any coordination. This is because: (i) the combined entity would still remain below the market leader, GE; (ii) other market players remaining in the market for gas gensets post-transaction have a much larger market share than suggested by the Phase I data and continue to pose an effective competitive constraint; (iii) other sources of asymmetry in the market continue to exist, in particular differences in electrical efficiency as well as R&D investments among the main competitors; (iv) the Parties are not close competitors; and (v) the specificity of the genset competition, which takes place on the basis of projects (as opposed to gensets), along with the heterogeneity of the projects and the customers hinder genset manufacturers’ ability to monitor each other’s behaviour on the gas genset market. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission Phase II market investigation indicated that the proposed transaction would not lead to significant changes in the structure of the market nor necessarily increase the future sustainability of any coordination. This is because: (i) the combined entity would still remain below the market leader, GE; (ii) other market players remaining in the market for gas gensets post-transaction have a much larger market share than suggested by the Phase I data and continue to pose an effective competitive constraint; (iii) other sources of asymmetry in the market continue to exist, in particular differences in electrical efficiency as well as R&D investments among the main competitors; (iv) the Parties are not close competitors; and (v) the specificity of the genset competition, which takes place on the basis of projects (as opposed to gensets), along with the heterogeneity of the projects and the customers hinder genset manufacturers’ ability to monitor each other’s behaviour on the gas genset market.

| (26) | As a result, no evidence exists that the proposed transaction gives rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market of gas gensets for power generation based on coordinated effects. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

As a result, no evidence exists that the proposed transaction gives rise to a significant impediment of effective competition in the market of gas gensets for power generation based on coordinated effects.

3.   Vertical effects

| (27) | The potential vertical effects of the proposed transaction were assessed primarily as a reaction to the complaint of a third-party packager, which relates to the Parties’ alleged ability and incentive post-transaction to stop supplying bare gas engines. The Commission Phase II market investigation confirmed that a theory of harm based on vertical effects can be excluded. First, only Caterpillar is active in the market for supply of bare engines (upstream). Second, its market presence is not significant, with a market share below 25 % in the EEA and below 10 % worldwide under any alternative market delineation. Thus, it is unlikely that the combined entity will have the ability or incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy post-transaction as regards the supply of gas bare engines. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The potential vertical effects of the proposed transaction were assessed primarily as a reaction to the complaint of a third-party packager, which relates to the Parties’ alleged ability and incentive post-transaction to stop supplying bare gas engines. The Commission Phase II market investigation confirmed that a theory of harm based on vertical effects can be excluded. First, only Caterpillar is active in the market for supply of bare engines (upstream). Second, its market presence is not significant, with a market share below 25 % in the EEA and below 10 % worldwide under any alternative market delineation. Thus, it is unlikely that the combined entity will have the ability or incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy post-transaction as regards the supply of gas bare engines.

| (28) | As to the other vertically affected markets, such as the supply of gensets and spare parts, a theory of harm based on vertical effects can be excluded as it is unlikely that the combined entity will have the ability or incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy post-transaction. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

As to the other vertically affected markets, such as the supply of gensets and spare parts, a theory of harm based on vertical effects can be excluded as it is unlikely that the combined entity will have the ability or incentive to engage in an input foreclosure strategy post-transaction.

V.   CONCLUSION

| (29) | For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the proposed transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the proposed transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

| (30) | Consequently, the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Consequently, the concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

(2)  Market shares for Tognum and Rolls-Royce are combined as Daimler and Rolls-Royce have recently acquired joint control over Tognum.

(3)  No sales of medium-speed gas gensets with capacities below 2,5 MW were recorded in the last five years worldwide.

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/9

---

MEDIA 2007 — DEVELOPMENT, DISTRIBUTION, PROMOTION AND TRAINING

Call for proposals — EACEA/7/12

Support for the transnational distribution of European films — The ‘automatic’ scheme 2012

2012/C 60/06

1.   Objectives and description

This notice of a call for proposals is based on Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) (1).

One of the objectives of the programme is to encourage and support the wider transnational distribution of recent European films by providing funds to distributors, based upon their performance on the market, for further reinvestment in new non-national European films.

The scheme also aims to encourage the development of links between the production and distribution sectors thus improving the market share of European films and the competitiveness of European companies.

2.   Eligible applicants

This notice is aimed at European companies specialised in the theatrical distribution of European works and whose activities contribute to the attainment of the above objectives of the MEDIA programme as described in the Council Decision.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 27 countries of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 27 countries of the European Union,

| — | the EEA countries, Croatia and Switzerland, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EEA countries, Croatia and Switzerland,

| — | Bosnia and Herzegovina (under the condition of the finalisation of the negotiation process and the formalisation of the participation of this country to the MEDIA programme). |
| --- | --- |

—

Bosnia and Herzegovina (under the condition of the finalisation of the negotiation process and the formalisation of the participation of this country to the MEDIA programme).

3.   Eligible actions

The ‘automatic’ support scheme works in two phases:

| — | generation of a potential fund, proportional to the number of paying admission tickets sold for non-domestic European films in States participating in the programme during the reference year (2011), up to a fixed ceiling per film and adjusted for each country.
  Group or club screenings where an individual ticket price is not levied will not be eligible. All admissions should be covered by the relevant national reporting and verification systems which enable the national authority to certify them. EACEA reserves the right to reject applications where it is not satisfied that all of the conditions have been met, |
| --- | --- |

—

generation of a potential fund, proportional to the number of paying admission tickets sold for non-domestic European films in States participating in the programme during the reference year (2011), up to a fixed ceiling per film and adjusted for each country.

Group or club screenings where an individual ticket price is not levied will not be eligible. All admissions should be covered by the relevant national reporting and verification systems which enable the national authority to certify them. EACEA reserves the right to reject applications where it is not satisfied that all of the conditions have been met,

| — | reinvestment of the potential fund: thus generated by each company, the fund must be reinvested in three modules (three types of action) by 1 October 2013:






  1. | the co-production of non-national European films; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

reinvestment of the potential fund: thus generated by each company, the fund must be reinvested in three modules (three types of action) by 1 October 2013:

1.

the co-production of non-national European films;

| 2. | the acquisition of distribution rights, for example by means of minimum guarantees, of non-national European films; and/or in |
| --- | --- |

2.

the acquisition of distribution rights, for example by means of minimum guarantees, of non-national European films; and/or in

| 3. | editing costs (prints, dubbing and subtitling), promotion costs and publicity costs for non-national European films. |
| --- | --- |

3.

editing costs (prints, dubbing and subtitling), promotion costs and publicity costs for non-national European films.

For the film to be eligible its first copyright must not have been established before 2008.

| | Action type 1 and 2:
  The maximum duration of the actions is 30 months, from 1 October 2012 until 1 April 2015. |
| --- | --- |

Action type 1 and 2:

The maximum duration of the actions is 30 months, from 1 October 2012 until 1 April 2015.

| | Action type 3:
  The maximum duration of the actions is 42 months, from 1 April 2012 until 1 October 2015. |
| --- | --- |

Action type 3:

The maximum duration of the actions is 42 months, from 1 April 2012 until 1 October 2015.

Reinvestment applications must be sent to the Agency by the deadlines set out in the table below:

| Module | Dates of the project | Deadline for presentation of the reinvestment project | Period of eligibility of costs |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | Co-production |

Module

Dates of the project

Deadline for presentation of the reinvestment project

Period of eligibility of costs

1.

Co-production

The co-production contract may be signed at the earliest on 1.10.2012

Within three months of the signature of the co-production contract and no later than 1.10.2013

From 1.10.2012 until 1.4.2015

| 2. | Minimum guarantee |
| --- | --- |

2.

Minimum guarantee

The distribution contract/license agreement may be signed at the earliest on 1.10.2012

Within three months of the signature of the distribution contract/license agreement (deal memo or long form agreement are both accepted) and no later than 1.10.2013

From 1.10.2012 until 1.4.2015

| 3. | P&A costs |
| --- | --- |

3.

P&A costs

The first theatrical release of the film in the territory may take place at the earliest on 1.10.2012 and at the latest on 1.10.2014

At the latest on the day of the first theatrical release of the film in the territory and no later than 1.10.2013

From 1.4.2012 until 1.10.2015

4.   Award criteria

A potential fund will be attributed to eligible European distribution companies on the basis of the admissions achieved by the European non-national films distributed by the applicant in the reference year (2011).

The potential fund will be calculated based upon a fixed amount per eligible entry. Shall the sum of generated funds exceed EUR 20 million under this call, each potential fund will be reduced proportionally. This reduction will not have the effect of lowering the amount of the potential fund below the minimum availability thresholds indicated in the guidelines.

The support will take the form of a potential fund (the ‘fund’) available to distributors for further investments in recent non-national European films.

The fund can be reinvested:

| 1. | in the production of new non-national European films (i.e. films not yet completed at the date of application for reinvestment); |
| --- | --- |

1.

in the production of new non-national European films (i.e. films not yet completed at the date of application for reinvestment);

| 2. | in the meeting of minimum distribution guarantees for recent non-national European films; |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the meeting of minimum distribution guarantees for recent non-national European films;

| 3. | in the meeting of distribution costs, i.e. P&A (promotion and advertising) for recent non-national European films. |
| --- | --- |

3.

in the meeting of distribution costs, i.e. P&A (promotion and advertising) for recent non-national European films.

5.   Budget

The total budget available is EUR 18 977 675.

The financial contribution awarded is a subsidy. The financial support from the Commission cannot exceed 40 %, 50 % or 60 % of the total eligible costs. There is no maximum amount.

The Agency reserves the right not to allocate all the funds available.

6.   Deadline for submission of applications

Proposals for the ‘generation’ of a potential fund must be sent (postmark date) on 30 April 2012.

Proposals for the ‘reinvestment’ of the potential fund must be sent (postmark date) within the deadline set out for each module in the above table, and no later than 1 October 2013.

Proposals must be sent to the following address:

| Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) |
| --- |
| Mr Constantin DASKALAKIS |
| BOUR 3/66 |
| Avenue du Bourget/Bourgetlaan 1 |
| 1140 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Mr Constantin DASKALAKIS

BOUR 3/66

Avenue du Bourget/Bourgetlaan 1

1140 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The official application forms must be used and duly signed by the person entitled to enter into legally binding commitments on behalf of the applicant organisation.

The application package containing all the application forms and the annexes, as detailed in the guidelines, must clearly mention:

MEDIA Programme — Distribution EACEA/7/12 — Automatic cinema

Applications sent by fax or e-mail will be rejected.

7.   Full details

The guidelines together with the application forms can be found at the following Internet address:

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/programme/distrib/schemes/auto/index_en.htm

Applications must be submitted on the forms provided and contain all the information and annexes requested.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 24.11.2006, p. 12.

---

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/12

---

Training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges

2012/C 60/07

A new call for proposals on training of national judges in EU competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges has been published on:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/calls/index.html

Deadline for application: 17 April 2012.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 60/08

| 1. | On 22 February 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Avenance Italia (Italy) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Gemeaz Cusin (Italy) by way of acquisition of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 22 February 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Avenance Italia (Italy) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Gemeaz Cusin (Italy) by way of acquisition of shares.

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






  — | Avenance Italia, which is ultimately jointly controlled by Charterhouse and Robert Zolade, is active in contract foodservices and facilities management services in Italy, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

Avenance Italia, which is ultimately jointly controlled by Charterhouse and Robert Zolade, is active in contract foodservices and facilities management services in Italy,

| — | Gemeaz Cusin is active in contract foodservices in Italy. |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeaz Cusin is active in contract foodservices in Italy.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6513 — Avenance Italia/Gemeaz Cusin, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 60/09

| 1. | On 21 February 2012 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Vision Technologies Aerospace Ltd, (VTA, Singapore), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd, (‘STE’, Singapore), and Pratt and Whitney Line Maintenance Services Inc. (‘PWLMS’, USA) a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (‘UTC’, USA) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of a newly created joint venture. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 February 2012 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Vision Technologies Aerospace Ltd, (VTA, Singapore), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd, (‘STE’, Singapore), and Pratt and Whitney Line Maintenance Services Inc. (‘PWLMS’, USA) a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (‘UTC’, USA) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, joint control of a newly created joint venture.

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






  — | STE — integrated engineering group providing services in the aerospace, electronics, land systems and marine sectors, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

STE — integrated engineering group providing services in the aerospace, electronics, land systems and marine sectors,

| — | VTA — holding company, |
| --- | --- |

—

VTA — holding company,

| — | UTC — high-technology products and services for the buildings system and aerospace industries, |
| --- | --- |

—

UTC — high-technology products and services for the buildings system and aerospace industries,

| — | PWLMS — aircraft engine washing services, |
| --- | --- |

—

PWLMS — aircraft engine washing services,

| — | JV — EcoPower aircraft engine washing services. |
| --- | --- |

—

JV — EcoPower aircraft engine washing services.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6505 — STE/UTC/JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

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

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/15

---

Acknowledgement of receipt of complaint No CHAP(2011) 3460

2012/C 60/10

| 1. | The European Commission has received and continues to receive a series of complaints, in which complainants state that as a result of having been given the wrong information by the Polish paying agency, a large number of farmers (cucumber and tomato producers) in Poland did not claim compensation for damage caused by the E. coli outbreak, as they were informed that only producers of cucumbers grown in greenhouses or polytunnels were eligible for compensation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The European Commission has received and continues to receive a series of complaints, in which complainants state that as a result of having been given the wrong information by the Polish paying agency, a large number of farmers (cucumber and tomato producers) in Poland did not claim compensation for damage caused by the E. coli outbreak, as they were informed that only producers of cucumbers grown in greenhouses or polytunnels were eligible for compensation.

| 2. | The European Commission has registered and will continue to register these letters under reference number CHAP(2011) 3460. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission has registered and will continue to register these letters under reference number CHAP(2011) 3460.

| 3. | Given the significant number of complaints it has received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of its administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgment of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the Internet at:
  http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

3.

Given the significant number of complaints it has received on this subject, the Commission, with a view to responding swiftly and informing those concerned while making the most economical use of its administrative resources, is publishing this acknowledgment of receipt in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the Internet at:

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/complaints/receipt/index_en.htm

| 4. | The complaint is currently being examined by the Commission in the light of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 71). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The complaint is currently being examined by the Commission in the light of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 71).

| 5. | The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of this examination and of any follow-up action that the Commission may decide to take. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The complainants will be informed, through the same channels, of the results of this examination and of any follow-up action that the Commission may decide to take.

---

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/16

---

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

2012/C 60/11

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

SINGLE DOCUMENT

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘CORDEIRO MIRANDÊS’/‘CANHONO MIRANDÊS’

EC No: PT-PDO-0005-0787-12.08.2009

PGI ( ) PDO ( X )

1.   Name:

‘Cordeiro Mirandês’/‘Canhono Mirandês’

2.   Member State or third country:

Portugal

3.   Description of the agricultural product or foodstuff:

3.1.   Product type:

| Class 1.1 — | Fresh meat (and offal) |
| --- | --- |

Class 1.1 —

Fresh meat (and offal)

3.2.   Description of the product to which the name in (1) applies:

‘Cordeiro’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ refers to the meat obtained from the slaughter of sheep of either sex of the Churra Galega Mirandesa breed, identified and entered in the zootechnical register for that breed, aged up to four months, born and raised in a traditional extensive farming system, cut and packaged in accordance with the rules laid down in the specification and in the defined geographical area.

The meat of the ‘Cordeiro’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ can be presented commercially, irrespective of the age of slaughter, in two different ways:

| 1. | carcases and half-carcases; |
| --- | --- |

1.

carcases and half-carcases;

| 2. | pre-packaged, whole or in parts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

pre-packaged, whole or in parts.

Ribs must be cut to an average thickness of 2,5 cm.

Depending on the method of farming, the meat of ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’, according to the production method followed in the geographical area, has the following characteristics:

(a)   carcase weight: the carcase is classified in categories A, B and C according to weight, as follows:

(b)   fat content: the fat is white and shiny and of firm consistency, increasing in thickness, although not significantly, with the increase of the carcase weight. It does not ‘sweat’ and is smooth in texture;

(c)   sensory qualities: the meat is pink, extremely tender, succulent and very tasty, with very little marbling of muscle and fat. The muscle is firm and quite succulent and tender. There are no significant differences between any of the three categories of ‘Cordeiro’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ with regard to succulence, firmness, intensity of aroma or acceptability in general.

3.3.   Raw materials (for processed products only):

Not applicable.

3.4.   Feed (for products of animal origin only):

Management of the feeding is closely linked to the classification of ‘Cordeiro’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ into categories. Category A includes only those animals considered suckling lambs, since they feed only on mothers’ milk. After the third week of age they are gradually fed solids and are then considered grazing lambs and classified in categories B and C as they reach the appropriate age and weight. Once they are permanently grazing on the regional flora, their feed is supplemented with cereal grains to which is added wheat straw, natural grass and oat hay and fodder oats, rye and maize grown on the farm itself. When the production of these foods on the holding is insufficient, or in extreme situations (drought, natural disasters, fire, frost, or other circumstances), feed may be purchased from other holdings located in the defined geographical area, and there is no limit to the quantity of food which may be purchased. Its use may be authorised provided that:

| — | it does not exceed 50 % of the daily ration, |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not exceed 50 % of the daily ration,

| — | the feed concentrate does not exceed 35 % of the daily ration and meets the formulation laid down in the specification, |
| --- | --- |

—

the feed concentrate does not exceed 35 % of the daily ration and meets the formulation laid down in the specification,

| — | production of these concentrated foods and their use by animals is monitored. |
| --- | --- |

—

production of these concentrated foods and their use by animals is monitored.

Only natural products are used in feeding the animals, and the use is prohibited of products which might interfere with their growth and development, such as: hormones, antibiotics, sulphonamides, anabolic steroids, coccidiostats and other prohibited products.

3.5.   Specific steps in production that must take place in the defined geographical area:

The name ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ may only be used for the meat from animals born, fed, raised and slaughtered in holdings located within the defined geographical area and which are registered and approved for the purpose by the management consortium.

For such permission to be granted the following cumulative conditions must be met:

| — | producers’ holdings are located in the geographical production area, |
| --- | --- |

—

producers’ holdings are located in the geographical production area,

| — | animals which are to be marketed must be properly identified and entered in the zootechnical register for the Churra Galega Mirandesa breed, |
| --- | --- |

—

animals which are to be marketed must be properly identified and entered in the zootechnical register for the Churra Galega Mirandesa breed,

| — | the farming system practised, in particular for the feeding of animals, weight and age slaughter, is as specified in the specification, |
| --- | --- |

—

the farming system practised, in particular for the feeding of animals, weight and age slaughter, is as specified in the specification,

| — | producers are subject to the production rules and the system of control and certification, |
| --- | --- |

—

producers are subject to the production rules and the system of control and certification,

| — | producers commit themselves, in writing, to comply with the provisions of the specification. |
| --- | --- |

—

producers commit themselves, in writing, to comply with the provisions of the specification.

3.6.   Specific rules concerning slicing, grating, packaging, etc.:

Not applicable.

3.7.   Specific rules concerning labelling:

Irrespective of how the product is put up for sale, and in addition to the mandatory wording, all cuts or packages must be properly identified and labelled with the following wording:

| — | Cordeiro Mirandês — Denominação de Origem Protegida or Canhono Mirandês — Denominação de Origem Protegida, |
| --- | --- |

—

Cordeiro Mirandês — Denominação de Origem Protegida or Canhono Mirandês — Denominação de Origem Protegida,

| — | the product's logo, |
| --- | --- |

—

the product's logo,

Image
  Image

| — | name and address of the producer or group of producers marketing the product, |
| --- | --- |

—

name and address of the producer or group of producers marketing the product,

| — | EU logo (after registration with the EU), |
| --- | --- |

—

EU logo (after registration with the EU),

| — | the animal's identification number, |
| --- | --- |

—

the animal's identification number,

| — | certification marking, |
| --- | --- |

—

certification marking,

| — | indication of the carcase classification as A, B or C, |
| --- | --- |

—

indication of the carcase classification as A, B or C,

| — | date and place of slaughter, |
| --- | --- |

—

date and place of slaughter,

| — | address for complaints and enquiries; |
| --- | --- |

—

address for complaints and enquiries;

Under no circumstances should the name and address of the producer or of the group of producers marketing the product be replaced by the name of any other body, even if they are responsible for the product.

The marketing name — ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ PDO or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ PDO — cannot be supplemented by any other reference or mention, not even by the trade marks of distributors or others.

4.   Concise definition of the geographical area:

The geographical area for ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ includes the municipalities of Miranda do Douro, Mogadouro and Vimioso and the district of Bragança.

5.   Link with the geographical area:

5.1.   Specificity of the geographical area:

The morphological diversity of the mountains, the averagely-fertile-to-poor soil, the low rainfall unevenly distributed over the year and the water flowing in the deep valleys dictate the type of agriculture practised in the region, resulting in two separate but interrelated parts from the agricultural point of view: the plateau and the slopes. Mediterranean agriculture predominates on the slopes: vines, olive and almond trees and native small ruminants. The plateau is dominated by cereal and forage systems, with natural meadows locally known as marshes, and used for the native breeds that take advantage of the stubble and the fallow grain crop. The wealth of forage and grazing on the plateau feeds the cattle and sheep who otherwise compete with each other for the resources available. The sheep feed on the hoof on much of the grazing land, on the crop and the stubble, wild grass growing on uncultivated areas and the fallow crops, in addition to the meagre feeding to be had from the various shrub species on the Miranda plateau. The name of the breed, Churra Mirandesa, reflects the name of the region, the Miranda plateau, which is its production area and which these days is bred in the municipalities of Miranda do Douro, Vimioso e Mogadouro. This breed of sheep is as old as the history of the region where it is found. It was Celtic invaders who first crossed the ewes that existed in Portugal with the rams which they brought with them and which gave rise to the original stem from which today's sheep are descended. The Churra Galega Mirandesa sheep is very hardy and well suited the geographic and climatic conditions of the Miranda plateau and the slopes on the banks of the River Douro. The morphological and breeding characteristics of the breed are evidence of the excellent way in which they have adapted to the peculiarities of the geographical area and the abovementioned method of farming them. Their short and sturdy legs are well-suited to covering long distances for the grazing on the Miranda plateau and their broad legs and strong hooves reflect the topography of the plateau. Their small build, small ears and the breed's wool protect the animal from the low temperatures in winter. In these conditions, the way in which the Churra Galega Mirandesa is bred and driven to pasture is strongly associated with family tradition and to a special know-how acquired over time. Knowing how to drive the flocks and how to lead them to grazing are elements which define the skill of shepherding this breed. Furthermore, wool production with economic significance for the region has been a very important contributory factor to the maintenance of these sheep of the Miranda plateau. Their meat has long formed part of the diet of local populations. Thus, the know-how of the people of the region includes knowledge of how to cut and handle the meat and how to cut up the carcase, factors which give it a special flavour.

5.2.   Specificity of the product:

The special nature of the product derives from the breed of the animal but mainly from how it is farmed and fed. The traditional feeding of these animals, which is a function of the exploitation of local resources, gives rise to very tender meat which is particularly succulent and soft and whose fat is consistent and does not ‘sweat’. The muscle is firm with a uniform marbled intramuscular fat which results in very specific organoleptic characteristics, such as great tenderness and succulence. The way in which the rib of the ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ is cut is typical and unique. The thickness of the ribs is, on average, about 2,5 cm, which allows a higher yield from the carcase and a specific taste, enhancing the value of the meat of the ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ to consumers.

5.3.   Causal link between the geographical area and the quality or characteristics of the product (for PDO) or a specific quality, the reputation or other characteristic of the product (for PGI):

The Miranda plateau, which is the geographical production area of the ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’, is without a doubt the heartland of the Ovelha Churra Mirandesa breed. The renown of this product, which is well established on the market, comes from the specific physical and sensory characteristics of its meat. Production of ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ is closely linked to the edafoclimatic characteristics of this region, characterised by its poor soils and the dry climate, which requires extensive farming for cereals and favours the existence of natural pastures of spontaneous vegetation associated with the existing tree population. When grazing, the animals therefore feed on wild grass growing on uncultivated land and fallow crops, together with a meagre diet provided by the various species growing on the Miranda plateau, such as white Spanish broom (Cystisus multiflorum), Genista falcata, gum rockrose (Cistus ladanifer) and French lavender (Lavandura pedinculata). Typical of the meadow flora are meadow brome (Bromus commutatus), tall fescue (Festuca arandinacea), fragile oat (Gaudinia fragilis), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus brachystachys), brome fescue (Vulpia bromoides) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). The hay is normally natural meadow hay (spontaneous meadow flora) and the straw they are fed is normally wheat and oat straw. Rye, wheat and barley are provided whole or ground into flour. It is this diet, combined with the characteristics of the breed itself and method of shepherding, so well known by the local population, which gives the meat of the ‘Cordeiro Mirandês’ or ‘Canhono Mirandês’ its unique appearance, tenderness and succulence so appreciated in the region.

Reference to publication of the specification:

(Article 5(7) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

http://www.gpp.pt/Valor/doc/CE_Cordeiro_Mirandes.pdf

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---