# Official Journal C 3/6 Ja

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 3 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 486 January 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 3

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 486 January 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 003/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 003/2 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 375th meeting on 14 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges | 2 |
| 2005/C 003/3 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 376th meeting on 21 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges | 3 |
| 2005/C 003/4 | Final report of the hearing officer in Case COMP/38.549 — Architects' Association (delivered in accordance with Article 15 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) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 003/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 003/2

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 375th meeting on 14 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

th

2

2005/C 003/3

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 376th meeting on 21 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

th

3

2005/C 003/4

Final report of the hearing officer in Case COMP/38.549 — Architects' Association (delivered in accordance with Article 15 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)

4

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

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 6.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 January 2005

(2005/C 3/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3224 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4396 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70485 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0373 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5528 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,24 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2835 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5806 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,429 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,17 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4332 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1204 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 666 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,77 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,625 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8329 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7354 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6269 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,301 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8963 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1823 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 383,76 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8085 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3224

JPY

Japanese yen

138,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4396

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70485

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0373

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5528

ISK

Iceland króna

83,24

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2835

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5806

CZK

Czech koruna

30,429

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,17

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4332

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1204

ROL

Romanian leu

38 666

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,77

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,625

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8329

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7354

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6269

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,301

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8963

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1823

KRW

South Korean won

1 383,76

ZAR

South African rand

7,8085

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 6.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 375th meeting on 14 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

(2005/C 3/02)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Belgian Architects' Association may be considered to be an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty when it adopts a regulation such as Ethical Standard No 2. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Belgian Architects' Association may be considered to be an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty when it adopts a regulation such as Ethical Standard No 2.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the decision by which the minimum fee scale known as Ethical Standard No 2 was adopted has to be considered to be a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the decision by which the minimum fee scale known as Ethical Standard No 2 was adopted has to be considered to be a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty.

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Ethical Standard No 2 has as its object the restriction of competition within the common market, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty as a result of which it is not required to define the market or demonstrate that the decision has effectively restricted competition. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Ethical Standard No 2 has as its object the restriction of competition within the common market, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty as a result of which it is not required to define the market or demonstrate that the decision has effectively restricted competition.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in this case the decision made by the association of undertakings is liable to affect trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in this case the decision made by the association of undertakings is liable to affect trade between Member States.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the exception of the ‘Wouters’ case law is not applicable. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the exception of the ‘Wouters’ case law is not applicable.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that there are no grounds as found in Article 81(3) of the Treaty for declaring the provisions of Article 81(1) inapplicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that there are no grounds as found in Article 81(3) of the Treaty for declaring the provisions of Article 81(1) inapplicable in this case.

| 7. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that despite the arguments laid down by the Association a fine can be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that despite the arguments laid down by the Association a fine can be imposed.

| 8. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the gravity and duration of the infringement as a result of which the starting amount will be increased by 350 %. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the gravity and duration of the infringement as a result of which the starting amount will be increased by 350 %.

| 9. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the Commission accurately and fully presented all relevant circumstances concerning the fine |
| --- | --- |

9.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the Commission accurately and fully presented all relevant circumstances concerning the fine

| 10. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the relevance that was attributed to these circumstances as a result of which a moderate fine will be imposed. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the relevance that was attributed to these circumstances as a result of which a moderate fine will be imposed.

| 11. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

11.

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

| 12. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---

| 6.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 376th meeting on 21 June 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/A.38.549 — Ordre des architectes belges

(2005/C 3/03)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree on the proposal concerning the amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree on the proposal concerning the amount of the fine.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---

| 6.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/4

---

Final report of the hearing officer in Case COMP/38.549 — Architects' Association

(delivered in accordance with Article 15 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)

(2005/C 3/04)

With regard to the right to be heard, the following observations can be made on the draft decision.

On 3 November 2003, following an own-initiative investigation, the Commission sent a statement of objections to the Belgian Architects' Association. The statement of objections argued that the setting of scales of fixed or recommended minimum fees was contrary to the rules on competition.

The Association was given access to the file on 2 December 2003.

The Association was allowed ten weeks to reply to the statement of objections. It submitted comments within that time.

The Association considered that its rights of defence had not been fully respected in the proceedings because it had not had access to a document that the directorate-general for Competition had classified ‘confidential’.

Upon examination it became clear that this document would have made it possible to identify a person who had supplied information to the Commission.

It had thus been classified ‘confidential’ quite rightly, given the duty of confidentiality that rests on the Commission in such cases.

The anonymity of a person who supplies information must be respected if that person so requests and may otherwise be open to reprisals (Court of Justice in Case 143/85 Adams v Commission, paragraphs 34 ff.).

The Association exercised its right to defend itself orally, at a hearing that took place on 9 February 2004.

The draft Commission Decision does not raise any fresh objections additional to those in the statement of objections previously addressed to the Association.

I consider, therefore, that the parties' right to be heard has been respected.

Brussels, 16 June 2004.

Serge DURANDE

---