# Official Journal C 341/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 341 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5816 October 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 341

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5816 October 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 341/01 | Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature | 1 |
| 2015/C 341/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7727 — Colony/AXA/Groupe Data 4) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2015/C 341/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7773 — KKR/SoftwareONE) (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 341/01

Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature

1

2015/C 341/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7727 — Colony/AXA/Groupe Data 4) (
  1
  )

1

3

2015/C 341/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7773 — KKR/SoftwareONE) (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 341/04 | Council Decision of 13 October 2015 appointing the members and alternates of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems | 4 |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 341/05 | Euro exchange rates | 9 |
| 2015/C 341/06 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 3 June 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.6800 — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV — Rapporteur: Italy | 10 |
| 2015/C 341/07 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV (M.6800) | 12 |
| 2015/C 341/08 | Summary of Commission Decision of 16 June 2015 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.6800 — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV) (notified under document C(2015) 4061) | 13 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2015/C 341/09 | Update of the list of border crossing points referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) | 19 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2015/C 341/04

Council Decision of 13 October 2015 appointing the members and alternates of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems

4

European Commission

2015/C 341/05

Euro exchange rates

9

2015/C 341/06

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 3 June 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.6800 — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV — Rapporteur: Italy

10

2015/C 341/07

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV (M.6800)

12

2015/C 341/08

Summary of Commission Decision of 16 June 2015 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case M.6800 — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV) (notified under document C(2015) 4061)

(notified under document C(2015) 4061)

13

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2015/C 341/09

Update of the list of border crossing points referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

19

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 341/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7737 — Honeywell/Elster) (
  1
  ) | 23 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 341/11 | Application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council | 24 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 341/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7737 — Honeywell/Elster) (
  1
  )

1

23

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 341/11

Application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council

24

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/1

---

Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature

(2015/C 341/01)

Binding Tariff Information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:

Amendments to the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes and the Compendium of Classification Opinions, approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC doc. NC2116 – report of the 55th Session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION

(55th SESSION OF THE HSC IN MARCH 2015)

DOC. NC2116

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

| 29.30 | R/8 |
| --- | --- |
| 25.01 | R/25 |
| 30.02 | R/9 |
| 33.07 | R/25 |
| 35.06 | R/10 |
| Chapter 39 General — Annex | R/10 |
| 61.10 | R/24 |

29.30

R/8

25.01

R/25

30.02

R/9

33.07

R/25

35.06

R/10

Chapter 39 General — Annex

R/10

61.10

R/24

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

| 1511.90/1-2 | R/11 |
| --- | --- |
| 1904.10/1 | R/12 |
| 2007.99/1 | R/13 |
| 2106.90/30-31 | R/14 |
| 2309.90/7 | R/15 |
| 3701.30/1 | R/16 |
| 6102.30/1 | R/17 |
| 6210.50/1 | R/17 |
| 6307.90/6 | R/18 |
| 8528.51/5 | R/19 |
| 8541.40/1 | R/20 |
| 8704.21/3 | R/21 |
| 8711.50/1 | R/22 |
| 9019.10/2 | R/23 |

1511.90/1-2

R/11

1904.10/1

R/12

2007.99/1

R/13

2106.90/30-31

R/14

2309.90/7

R/15

3701.30/1

R/16

6102.30/1

R/17

6210.50/1

R/17

6307.90/6

R/18

8528.51/5

R/19

8541.40/1

R/20

8704.21/3

R/21

8711.50/1

R/22

9019.10/2

R/23

Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium) or can be downloaded from the internet site of this Directorate-General:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/harmonised_system/index_en.htm

---

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7727 — Colony/AXA/Groupe Data 4)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 341/02)

On 7 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7727. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7727. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

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

---

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7773 — KKR/SoftwareONE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 341/03)

On 7 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7773. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7773. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/4

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 13 October 2015

appointing the members and alternates of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems

(2015/C 341/04)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), and in particular Article 75 thereof,

Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 established the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 established the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems.

| (2) | By its Decisions of 21 October 2010 (2) and 7 March 2011 (3), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for the period from 20 October 2010 to 19 October 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By its Decisions of 21 October 2010 (2) and 7 March 2011 (3), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for the period from 20 October 2010 to 19 October 2015.

| (3) | The term of office of the current members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems appointed pursuant to those Council Decisions expires on 19 October 2015. Members and alternate members of that Committee should therefore be appointed as from 20 October 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The term of office of the current members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems appointed pursuant to those Council Decisions expires on 19 October 2015. Members and alternate members of that Committee should therefore be appointed as from 20 October 2015.

| (4) | Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not specify the term of office of the members and alternate members. Therefore, the Council should determine their term of office in its Decision appointing the members and alternate members. In order to avoid any unnecessary administrative burden, this term of office should be sufficiently long, taking into account that it is customary for advisory committees of this type to meet only once or twice a year. Overly frequent renewals of the Committee's whole membership would be avoided by a term of office of five years, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not specify the term of office of the members and alternate members. Therefore, the Council should determine their term of office in its Decision appointing the members and alternate members. In order to avoid any unnecessary administrative burden, this term of office should be sufficiently long, taking into account that it is customary for advisory committees of this type to meet only once or twice a year. Overly frequent renewals of the Committee's whole membership would be avoided by a term of office of five years,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for the period 20 October 2015 to 19 October 2020:

I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | Mr Marc MORSA | Mr Marc Van DAMME |
| Bulgaria | Ms Eva TOSHEVA | Ms Gergana YANKOVA |
| Czech Republic | Mr Jiří BAUER | Ms Gabriela PIKOROVÁ |
| Denmark | | |
| Germany | Mr Helmut WEBER | Ms Moira KETTNER |
| Estonia | Ms Leili ZAGLMAYER | Ms Katerin PEÄRNBERG |
| Ireland | Ms Mary O'SULLIVAN | Mr Kieran LEA |
| Greece | Ms Anna RIZOU | Ms Vasiliki MAMMONA |
| Croatia | Ms Sandra FRANKIĆ | Ms Snježana BALOKOVIĆ |
| Spain | Ms Ainhoa LÓPEZ DE GOICOECHEA URZAINQUI | Ms Irene GOZALBO LÓPEZ |
| France | Ms Séverine SALGADO | Mr François BRILLANCEAU |
| Italy | Ms Maria Grazia CATALDI | Mr Marco Giovanni MARINO |
| Cyprus | Mr George IERIDES | Mr Sotiris STRATIS |
| Latvia | Ms Jana MUIŽNIECE | Mr Ēriks MIĶĪTIS |
| Lithuania | Ms Mariana ŽIUKIENĖ | Ms Irena MARTINKUTĖ |
| Luxembourg | Mr Claude EWEN | Ms Karin MANDERSCHEID |
| Hungary | Ms Réka KOVÁCS | Ms Zsófia TÓTH |
| Malta | Mr Malcolm SCICLUNA | Ms Michelle GALEA |
| Netherlands | Ms Anje VRIJ | Mr Willem DE HAAN |
| Austria | Mr Manfred PÖLTL | Mr Heinz WITTMANN |
| Poland | Mr Robert WÓJCIK | Ms Elżbieta TOMASZEWSKA |
| Portugal | Mr José CID PROENÇA | Ms Elisabete SILVEIRA |
| Romania | Ms Adriana STOINEA | Mr Costin ILIUŢĂ |
| Slovenia | Mr Bojan KRAUT | Ms Metka LOGAR |
| Slovakia | Mr Jaroslav KOVÁČ | Ms Lucia MAHĎÁKOVÁ |
| Finland | Ms Mira SALOHEIMO | Ms Susanna GRIMM-VIKMAN |
| Sweden | Ms Johanna MÖLLERBERG | Mr Kent LARSSON |
| United Kingdom | Ms Lindsay ROOME | Ms Lindsay FULLARTON |

Country

Members

Alternates

Belgium

Mr Marc MORSA

Mr Marc Van DAMME

Bulgaria

Ms Eva TOSHEVA

Ms Gergana YANKOVA

Czech Republic

Mr Jiří BAUER

Ms Gabriela PIKOROVÁ

Denmark

Germany

Mr Helmut WEBER

Ms Moira KETTNER

Estonia

Ms Leili ZAGLMAYER

Ms Katerin PEÄRNBERG

Ireland

Ms Mary O'SULLIVAN

Mr Kieran LEA

Greece

Ms Anna RIZOU

Ms Vasiliki MAMMONA

Croatia

Ms Sandra FRANKIĆ

Ms Snježana BALOKOVIĆ

Spain

Ms Ainhoa LÓPEZ DE GOICOECHEA URZAINQUI

Ms Irene GOZALBO LÓPEZ

France

Ms Séverine SALGADO

Mr François BRILLANCEAU

Italy

Ms Maria Grazia CATALDI

Mr Marco Giovanni MARINO

Cyprus

Mr George IERIDES

Mr Sotiris STRATIS

Latvia

Ms Jana MUIŽNIECE

Mr Ēriks MIĶĪTIS

Lithuania

Ms Mariana ŽIUKIENĖ

Ms Irena MARTINKUTĖ

Luxembourg

Mr Claude EWEN

Ms Karin MANDERSCHEID

Hungary

Ms Réka KOVÁCS

Ms Zsófia TÓTH

Malta

Mr Malcolm SCICLUNA

Ms Michelle GALEA

Netherlands

Ms Anje VRIJ

Mr Willem DE HAAN

Austria

Mr Manfred PÖLTL

Mr Heinz WITTMANN

Poland

Mr Robert WÓJCIK

Ms Elżbieta TOMASZEWSKA

Portugal

Mr José CID PROENÇA

Ms Elisabete SILVEIRA

Romania

Ms Adriana STOINEA

Mr Costin ILIUŢĂ

Slovenia

Mr Bojan KRAUT

Ms Metka LOGAR

Slovakia

Mr Jaroslav KOVÁČ

Ms Lucia MAHĎÁKOVÁ

Finland

Ms Mira SALOHEIMO

Ms Susanna GRIMM-VIKMAN

Sweden

Ms Johanna MÖLLERBERG

Mr Kent LARSSON

United Kingdom

Ms Lindsay ROOME

Ms Lindsay FULLARTON

II.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | Mr Koen MEESTERS | Ms Anne PANNEELS |
| Bulgaria | Ms Assia GONEVA | Ms Velichka MIKOVA |
| Czech Republic | Ms Hana POPELKOVÁ | Mr Vít SAMEK |
| Denmark | | |
| Germany | Mr Robert NAZAREK | Mr Bertold BRÜCHER |
| Estonia | Ms Kaja TOOMSALU | Ms Elina REEDI |
| Ireland | Mr Eamon DEVOY | |
| Greece | Mr Evaggelos MOUTAFIS | Mr Nikos KOSTOPOULOS |
| Croatia | Ms Petra ŠPRAJAČEK | |
| Spain | Ms Ana Maria CORRAL JUAN | Mr Carlos BRAVO FERNÁNDEZ |
| France | Mr Pierre-Yves CHANU | Mr Abdou ALI MOHAMED |
| Italy | Mr Fabio PORCELLI | Mr Francesco CAGNASSO |
| Cyprus | | |
| Latvia | Ms Ruta PORNIECE | Mr Mārtiņš PUŽULS |
| Lithuania | Ms Jovita PRETZSCH | Ms Danutė ŠLIONSKIENĖ |
| Luxembourg | Mr Carlos PEREIRA | Mr Vincent JACQUET |
| Hungary | Mr Andrea VARGA | Ms Judith HAMBURG |
| Malta | Mr Robert BORG | Mr Josef VELLA |
| Netherlands | Mr S.R. BONTJE | Mr R.A.M. BLAAKMAN |
| Austria | Ms Martina THOMASBERGER | Ms Dinah DJALINOUS-GLATZ |
| Poland | Mr Michał MENES | Mr Tomasz JASIŃSKI |
| Portugal | Ms Aida Carla BATISTA MORAIS | Ms Ana Cecília SENA SIMÕES |
| Romania | | |
| Slovenia | Mr Goran LUKIČ | Mr Aljoša ČEČ |
| Slovakia | Ms Mária SVOREŇOVÁ | Ms Zdena DVORANOVÁ |
| Finland | Ms Pirjo VÄÄNÄNEN | Ms Katarina MURTO |
| Sweden | Ms Ellen NYGREN | Ms Sofia RÅSMAR |
| United Kingdom | Mr Richard EXELL | Ms Rosa CRAWFORD |

Country

Members

Alternates

Belgium

Mr Koen MEESTERS

Ms Anne PANNEELS

Bulgaria

Ms Assia GONEVA

Ms Velichka MIKOVA

Czech Republic

Ms Hana POPELKOVÁ

Mr Vít SAMEK

Denmark

Germany

Mr Robert NAZAREK

Mr Bertold BRÜCHER

Estonia

Ms Kaja TOOMSALU

Ms Elina REEDI

Ireland

Mr Eamon DEVOY

Greece

Mr Evaggelos MOUTAFIS

Mr Nikos KOSTOPOULOS

Croatia

Ms Petra ŠPRAJAČEK

Spain

Ms Ana Maria CORRAL JUAN

Mr Carlos BRAVO FERNÁNDEZ

France

Mr Pierre-Yves CHANU

Mr Abdou ALI MOHAMED

Italy

Mr Fabio PORCELLI

Mr Francesco CAGNASSO

Cyprus

Latvia

Ms Ruta PORNIECE

Mr Mārtiņš PUŽULS

Lithuania

Ms Jovita PRETZSCH

Ms Danutė ŠLIONSKIENĖ

Luxembourg

Mr Carlos PEREIRA

Mr Vincent JACQUET

Hungary

Mr Andrea VARGA

Ms Judith HAMBURG

Malta

Mr Robert BORG

Mr Josef VELLA

Netherlands

Mr S.R. BONTJE

Mr R.A.M. BLAAKMAN

Austria

Ms Martina THOMASBERGER

Ms Dinah DJALINOUS-GLATZ

Poland

Mr Michał MENES

Mr Tomasz JASIŃSKI

Portugal

Ms Aida Carla BATISTA MORAIS

Ms Ana Cecília SENA SIMÕES

Romania

Slovenia

Mr Goran LUKIČ

Mr Aljoša ČEČ

Slovakia

Ms Mária SVOREŇOVÁ

Ms Zdena DVORANOVÁ

Finland

Ms Pirjo VÄÄNÄNEN

Ms Katarina MURTO

Sweden

Ms Ellen NYGREN

Ms Sofia RÅSMAR

United Kingdom

Mr Richard EXELL

Ms Rosa CRAWFORD

III.   REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS

| Country | Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Belgium | Ms Monica DE JONGHE | Ms Hilde THYS |
| Bulgaria | Mr Rumen RADEV | Ms Rumyana GEORGIEVA |
| Czech Republic | Mr Luděk MAZUCH | Ms Marie ZVOLSKÁ |
| Denmark | | |
| Germany | Ms Christina BREIT | Ms Anne SCHOLZ |
| Estonia | Ms Victoria METS | Ms Katrin TRUVE |
| Ireland | Ms Lorraine PARKES | Ms Jean WINTERS |
| Greece | Mr Georgios KARANIKAS | Ms Rena BARDANI |
| Croatia | Ms Nataša NOVAKOVIĆ | Ms Milica JOVANOVIĆ |
| Spain | Ms Marina GORDÓN ORTÍZ | Mr Jordi GARCÍA VIÑA |
| France | Ms Emilie MARTINEZ | Mr Christophe SOUPIZET |
| Italy | Ms Paola ASTORRI | Mr Paolo RAVAGLI |
| Cyprus | | |
| Latvia | Ms Ilona KIUKUCĀNE | Ms Inese STEPIŅA |
| Lithuania | Mr Aidas VAIČIULIS | Ms Dovilė BAŠKYTĖ |
| Luxembourg | Mr François ENGELS | Ms Fabienne LANG |
| Hungary | Ms Julianna VARGA | Mr Péter VIDA |
| Malta | Ms Abigail PSAILA MAMO | Mr Joe FARRUGIA |
| Netherlands | Mr G. VELDHUIS | Mr R. VAN DER WOUD |
| Austria | Mr Martin GLEITSMANN | Mr Martin SONNTAG |
| Poland | Mr Jeremi MORDASEWICZ | Mr Zbigniew ŻUREK |
| Portugal | Ms Cristina NAGY MORAIS | Mr Nuno BERNARDO |
| Romania | Ms Roxana PRODAN | Mr Dorin CHIRILĂ |
| Slovenia | Mr Tomaž BERNIK | Ms Maja SKORUPAN |
| Slovakia | | |
| Finland | Mr Mikko RÄSÄNEN | Ms Miia KANNISTO |
| Sweden | Ms Catharina BÄCK | Mr Hans GIDHAGEN |
| United Kingdom | Ms Rachel SMITH | |

Country

Members

Alternates

Belgium

Ms Monica DE JONGHE

Ms Hilde THYS

Bulgaria

Mr Rumen RADEV

Ms Rumyana GEORGIEVA

Czech Republic

Mr Luděk MAZUCH

Ms Marie ZVOLSKÁ

Denmark

Germany

Ms Christina BREIT

Ms Anne SCHOLZ

Estonia

Ms Victoria METS

Ms Katrin TRUVE

Ireland

Ms Lorraine PARKES

Ms Jean WINTERS

Greece

Mr Georgios KARANIKAS

Ms Rena BARDANI

Croatia

Ms Nataša NOVAKOVIĆ

Ms Milica JOVANOVIĆ

Spain

Ms Marina GORDÓN ORTÍZ

Mr Jordi GARCÍA VIÑA

France

Ms Emilie MARTINEZ

Mr Christophe SOUPIZET

Italy

Ms Paola ASTORRI

Mr Paolo RAVAGLI

Cyprus

Latvia

Ms Ilona KIUKUCĀNE

Ms Inese STEPIŅA

Lithuania

Mr Aidas VAIČIULIS

Ms Dovilė BAŠKYTĖ

Luxembourg

Mr François ENGELS

Ms Fabienne LANG

Hungary

Ms Julianna VARGA

Mr Péter VIDA

Malta

Ms Abigail PSAILA MAMO

Mr Joe FARRUGIA

Netherlands

Mr G. VELDHUIS

Mr R. VAN DER WOUD

Austria

Mr Martin GLEITSMANN

Mr Martin SONNTAG

Poland

Mr Jeremi MORDASEWICZ

Mr Zbigniew ŻUREK

Portugal

Ms Cristina NAGY MORAIS

Mr Nuno BERNARDO

Romania

Ms Roxana PRODAN

Mr Dorin CHIRILĂ

Slovenia

Mr Tomaž BERNIK

Ms Maja SKORUPAN

Slovakia

Finland

Mr Mikko RÄSÄNEN

Ms Miia KANNISTO

Sweden

Ms Catharina BÄCK

Mr Hans GIDHAGEN

United Kingdom

Ms Rachel SMITH

Article 2

The Council will appoint the members and the alternate members who have not yet been nominated at a later date.

Article 3

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

Done at Luxembourg, 13 October 2015.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN

---

(1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 21 October 2010 appointing the members and alternates of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (OJ C 290, 27.10.2010, p. 5).

2

(3)  Council Decision of 7 March 2011 appointing the members and alternates of the Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Social Security Systems for Ireland, France and the Netherlands (OJ C 83, 17.3.2011, p. 3).

3

---

European Commission

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

15 October 2015

(2015/C 341/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1439 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4612 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3274 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0873 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2170 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,084 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,39 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2291 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4176 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2975 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5612 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4756 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8652 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6683 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5752 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 282,89 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9957 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2583 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6200 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 389,36 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7166 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,341 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,0735 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,217 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3425 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7577 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,1533 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1439

JPY

Japanese yen

135,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4612

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73970

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3274

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0873

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2170

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,084

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,39

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2291

RON

Romanian leu

4,4176

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2975

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5612

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4756

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8652

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6683

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5752

KRW

South Korean won

1 282,89

ZAR

South African rand

14,9957

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2583

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6200

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 389,36

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7166

PHP

Philippine peso

52,341

RUB

Russian rouble

71,0735

THB

Thai baht

40,217

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3425

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7577

INR

Indian rupee

74,1533

---

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

---

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/10

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 3 June 2015 regarding a draft decision relating to Case M.6800 — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV

Rapporteur: Italy

(2015/C 341/06)

Concentration

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

1.

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

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction constitutes a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction constitutes a joint venture performing on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous economic entity within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction must be deemed to have a Union dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction must be deemed to have a Union dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation.

Market definition

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets in the draft Decision.
  In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees that the following markets should be distinguished:






  (a) | the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licenses; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant product markets in the draft Decision.

In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees that the following markets should be distinguished:

(a)

the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licenses; and

| (b) | the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the geographic market definition for both markets, i.e. that they are EEA-wide in scope. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the geographic market definition for both markets, i.e. that they are EEA-wide in scope.

Competitive assessment

| 6. | Concerning non-coordinated anti-competitive effects, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s view that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition because it would lead to an increase in barriers to entry and expansion in the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licenses. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Concerning non-coordinated anti-competitive effects, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s view that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition because it would lead to an increase in barriers to entry and expansion in the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licenses.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights because, in spite of the JV’s larger repertoire, the transaction would not give the JV increased bargaining power and, hence, lead to more onerous licensing terms for digital platforms. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights because, in spite of the JV’s larger repertoire, the transaction would not give the JV increased bargaining power and, hence, lead to more onerous licensing terms for digital platforms.

| 8. | Concerning other anticompetitive effects, the Advisory Committee agrees, in view of the business separation measures that the Notifying Parties will put in place and the fact that the transaction will not significantly change the current situation as regards the aggregation of commercially sensitive information, that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition because of the exchange of commercially sensitive information. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Concerning other anticompetitive effects, the Advisory Committee agrees, in view of the business separation measures that the Notifying Parties will put in place and the fact that the transaction will not significantly change the current situation as regards the aggregation of commercially sensitive information, that the transaction would not significantly impede effective competition because of the exchange of commercially sensitive information.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees that the transaction would not lead to spill-over effects between the Notifying Parties in the sense of Article 2(4) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the transaction would not lead to spill-over effects between the Notifying Parties in the sense of Article 2(4) of the Merger Regulation.

Commitments

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the final commitments offered by the Notifying Parties on 10 April 2015 address the competition concerns identified by the Commission on the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licenses. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the final commitments offered by the Notifying Parties on 10 April 2015 address the competition concerns identified by the Commission on the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licenses.

| 11. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that, subject to the full compliance with the final commitments, the notified transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that, subject to the full compliance with the final commitments, the notified transaction is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it.

Conclusion

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the notified concentration must be declared compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/12

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV

(M.6800)

(2015/C 341/07)

| 1. | On 28 November 2014, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (the ‘Merger Regulation’) and in particular following a successful request under Article 4(5) of that regulation, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed transaction (the ‘Proposed Transaction’) by which the ‘Notifying Parties’ – namely PRS for Music Limited (PRSfM), Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (STIM) and Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) – acquire joint control in a newly created joint venture by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 28 November 2014, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (the ‘Merger Regulation’) and in particular following a successful request under Article 4(5) of that regulation, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed transaction (the ‘Proposed Transaction’) by which the ‘Notifying Parties’ – namely PRS for Music Limited (PRSfM), Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (STIM) and Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) – acquire joint control in a newly created joint venture by way of purchase of shares.

| 2. | On 14 January 2015, the Commission adopted a decision initiating proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. In that decision, the Commission indicated that the Proposed Transaction involves the creation of a full-function joint venture falling within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that that transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

On 14 January 2015, the Commission adopted a decision initiating proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. In that decision, the Commission indicated that the Proposed Transaction involves the creation of a full-function joint venture falling within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that that transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the EEA Agreement.

| 3. | On 28 January 2015, the Notifying Parties submitted their written comments on that decision of 14 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On 28 January 2015, the Notifying Parties submitted their written comments on that decision of 14 January 2015.

| 4. | The period within which to examine the Proposed Transaction was extended by 20 working days following a request to this effect submitted by the Notifying Parties on 4 February 2015 in accordance with Article 10(3), second subparagraph, of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The period within which to examine the Proposed Transaction was extended by 20 working days following a request to this effect submitted by the Notifying Parties on 4 February 2015 in accordance with Article 10(3), second subparagraph, of the Merger Regulation.

| 5. | In order to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission, the Notifying Parties submitted a first set of proposed commitments on 13 March 2015. The same day, the Commission initiated a ‘market test’ of those proposals. It communicated the outcome of that market test to the Notifying Parties on 25 March 2015. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In order to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission, the Notifying Parties submitted a first set of proposed commitments on 13 March 2015. The same day, the Commission initiated a ‘market test’ of those proposals. It communicated the outcome of that market test to the Notifying Parties on 25 March 2015.

| 6. | The Notifying Parties submitted a revised set of proposed commitments on 1 April 2015. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Notifying Parties submitted a revised set of proposed commitments on 1 April 2015.

| 7. | On 10 April 2015, the Notifying Parties submitted a further modified set of proposed commitments (the ‘Final Commitments’). |
| --- | --- |

7.

On 10 April 2015, the Notifying Parties submitted a further modified set of proposed commitments (the ‘Final Commitments’).

| 8. | The Commission did not issue a statement of objections pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (3). There was no formal oral hearing in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Commission did not issue a statement of objections pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (3). There was no formal oral hearing in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation.

| 9. | There were no applications to be heard as an interested third person in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

9.

There were no applications to be heard as an interested third person in the present proceedings.

| 10. | The Commission takes the view that the Final Commitments remove the competition concerns raised by the Proposed Transaction. The draft decision therefore declares the Proposed Transaction compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the Final Commitments set out as obligations attached to the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Commission takes the view that the Final Commitments remove the competition concerns raised by the Proposed Transaction. The draft decision therefore declares the Proposed Transaction compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the Final Commitments set out as obligations attached to the draft decision.

| 11. | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. I conclude that it does. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. I conclude that it does.

| 12. | Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings.

Brussels, 8 June 2015

Joos STRAGIER

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

3

---

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/13

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 16 June 2015

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

(Case M.6800 — PRSfM/STIM/GEMA/JV)

(notified under document C(2015) 4061)

(Only the English version is authentic)

(2015/C 341/08)

On 16 June 2015 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(2) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision, as the case may be in the form of a provisional version, can be found in the authentic language of the case 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) | PRS for Music Limited (‘PRSfM’, United Kingdom), Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (‘STIM’, Sweden) and Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (‘GEMA’, Germany) are collective management organisations (‘CMOs’), also known as collecting societies. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

PRS for Music Limited (‘PRSfM’, United Kingdom), Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (‘STIM’, Sweden) and Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (‘GEMA’, Germany) are collective management organisations (‘CMOs’), also known as collecting societies.

II.   THE OPERATION

| (2) | On 28 November 2014, the Commission received a formal notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), by which the undertakings PRSfM, STIM and GEMA (the ‘Notifying Parties’) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture (the ‘JV’) by way of purchase of shares. The concentration was notified to the Commission following a referral at the request of the Notifying Parties pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 28 November 2014, the Commission received a formal notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), by which the undertakings PRSfM, STIM and GEMA (the ‘Notifying Parties’) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created joint venture (the ‘JV’) by way of purchase of shares. The concentration was notified to the Commission following a referral at the request of the Notifying Parties pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation.

III.   SUMMARY

| (3) | PRSfM, STIM and GEMA are CMOs. They license copyrights in songs and other musical works (hereinafter the term songs will be used to denote both). The Notifying Parties intend to create a joint venture for multi-territorial online music licensing and copyright administration services. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

PRSfM, STIM and GEMA are CMOs. They license copyrights in songs and other musical works (hereinafter the term songs will be used to denote both). The Notifying Parties intend to create a joint venture for multi-territorial online music licensing and copyright administration services.

| (4) | While the transaction would not lead to a significant impediment to effective competition on the online licensing market, the decision finds that the transaction would result in a significant impediment to effective competition on the market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and ‘option 3 publishers’ (2) in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

While the transaction would not lead to a significant impediment to effective competition on the online licensing market, the decision finds that the transaction would result in a significant impediment to effective competition on the market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and ‘option 3 publishers’ (2) in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences.

| (5) | To remove these concerns, the Notifying Parties submitted the following commitments: |
| --- | --- |

(5)

To remove these concerns, the Notifying Parties submitted the following commitments:

| (6) | PRSfM committed not to use its control over the performing rights that it manages to force option 3 publishers or their service providers to purchase copyright administration services from the JV. The JV will allow other collecting societies and ‘option 3 publishers’ to choose which copyright administration services they want to use. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

PRSfM committed not to use its control over the performing rights that it manages to force option 3 publishers or their service providers to purchase copyright administration services from the JV. The JV will allow other collecting societies and ‘option 3 publishers’ to choose which copyright administration services they want to use.

| (7) | The JV will offer key copyright administration services to other collecting societies on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory when compared to the terms offered to its parents PRSfM, STIM and GEMA. The JV will also facilitate the switching of collecting societies relying on the JV's copyright database to another provider of database services. Collecting societies can terminate their contract with the JV at any time. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The JV will offer key copyright administration services to other collecting societies on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory when compared to the terms offered to its parents PRSfM, STIM and GEMA. The JV will also facilitate the switching of collecting societies relying on the JV's copyright database to another provider of database services. Collecting societies can terminate their contract with the JV at any time.

| (8) | The JV will not enter into exclusive contracts with its customers for copyright administration services. This possibility, however, remains for back-office services. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The JV will not enter into exclusive contracts with its customers for copyright administration services. This possibility, however, remains for back-office services.

| (9) | In light of these commitments, the Commission concluded that the proposed transaction would no longer raise competition concerns, as the decision is conditional upon full compliance with the commitments. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In light of these commitments, the Commission concluded that the proposed transaction would no longer raise competition concerns, as the decision is conditional upon full compliance with the commitments.

IV.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

A.   Background to the transaction

1.   The different types of copyrights

| (10) | Several types of rights are relevant for the licensing of music and CMOs only license some types. A first category of rights are the recording rights, which protect the recorded rendition of a song. These recording rights are owned by the performers (the persons whose voice or instrument has been recorded) or by record companies (the companies that record and sell music). They are licensed directly by record companies and are not at issue in this case. A second category of rights are the rights in the song itself, that is, the rights in the composition and lyrics of the song. These rights are originally owned by the authors of the songs, that is, the persons who composed the music and wrote the lyrics. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Several types of rights are relevant for the licensing of music and CMOs only license some types. A first category of rights are the recording rights, which protect the recorded rendition of a song. These recording rights are owned by the performers (the persons whose voice or instrument has been recorded) or by record companies (the companies that record and sell music). They are licensed directly by record companies and are not at issue in this case. A second category of rights are the rights in the song itself, that is, the rights in the composition and lyrics of the song. These rights are originally owned by the authors of the songs, that is, the persons who composed the music and wrote the lyrics.

| (11) | There are several types of rights in songs but for this case, only the online rights are relevant. Online rights consist of a combination of two types of rights: mechanical and performing rights for online use. Performing rights (which are owned by authors) are the rights to communicate a song to the public, which includes the right to make the song available to the public. Mechanical rights are the rights to reproduce a song. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

There are several types of rights in songs but for this case, only the online rights are relevant. Online rights consist of a combination of two types of rights: mechanical and performing rights for online use. Performing rights (which are owned by authors) are the rights to communicate a song to the public, which includes the right to make the song available to the public. Mechanical rights are the rights to reproduce a song.

| (12) | CMOs only license rights in songs, not recording rights. Authors transfer their performing and mechanical rights to CMOs because it would be difficult for them to license their copyrights themselves, as this would entail hundreds of transactions. CMOs bundle the rights of a large number of authors and then license those rights collectively. The entire package of rights that a CMO licenses in this way is the repertoire of the CMO. After licensing the rights, CMOs also monitor the use of these rights and collect royalties, that is, the compensation due to the author for the use of his or her song. CMOs forward the royalties to authors but deduct a commission for their work. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

CMOs only license rights in songs, not recording rights. Authors transfer their performing and mechanical rights to CMOs because it would be difficult for them to license their copyrights themselves, as this would entail hundreds of transactions. CMOs bundle the rights of a large number of authors and then license those rights collectively. The entire package of rights that a CMO licenses in this way is the repertoire of the CMO. After licensing the rights, CMOs also monitor the use of these rights and collect royalties, that is, the compensation due to the author for the use of his or her song. CMOs forward the royalties to authors but deduct a commission for their work.

| (13) | Copyrights can be licensed for different uses. This case concerns the licensing of copyrights for online use, also known as online licences. Online platforms such as Spotify, Deezer and iTunes need to acquire these online licences to offer music to their subscribers. They need a licence for both the mechanical rights and the performing rights in the songs they offer on their platform. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Copyrights can be licensed for different uses. This case concerns the licensing of copyrights for online use, also known as online licences. Online platforms such as Spotify, Deezer and iTunes need to acquire these online licences to offer music to their subscribers. They need a licence for both the mechanical rights and the performing rights in the songs they offer on their platform.

| (14) | Copyrights can be licensed for a single country or for several countries, resulting in mono-territorial licences and multi-territorial licences respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Copyrights can be licensed for a single country or for several countries, resulting in mono-territorial licences and multi-territorial licences respectively.

2.   The role of CMOs as licensors, the fragmentation of repertoire and the CRM Directive

| (15) | CMOs traditionally licensed both performing and mechanical rights for online use to online platforms. They traditionally did so only for their own country. However, each CMO had agreements with other CMOs, so-called reciprocal representation agreements, allowing it to license the repertoire of the other CMOs. This way, each CMO was able to license the world repertoire, but only for its own territory. Online platforms therefore had to obtain a license from all CMOs in the EEA to operate in the entire EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

CMOs traditionally licensed both performing and mechanical rights for online use to online platforms. They traditionally did so only for their own country. However, each CMO had agreements with other CMOs, so-called reciprocal representation agreements, allowing it to license the repertoire of the other CMOs. This way, each CMO was able to license the world repertoire, but only for its own territory. Online platforms therefore had to obtain a license from all CMOs in the EEA to operate in the entire EEA.

| (16) | In the past decade, this traditional scheme has changed in two important ways. First, some CMOs have started granting multi-territorial licences to their repertoire. In other words, they license their repertoire not only for use in their own country but also in other countries in the EEA. One consequence of this development is that these CMOs no longer grant an unrestricted mandate to other CMOs to license their repertoire for online use in countries covered by the multi-territorial licence. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

In the past decade, this traditional scheme has changed in two important ways. First, some CMOs have started granting multi-territorial licences to their repertoire. In other words, they license their repertoire not only for use in their own country but also in other countries in the EEA. One consequence of this development is that these CMOs no longer grant an unrestricted mandate to other CMOs to license their repertoire for online use in countries covered by the multi-territorial licence.

| (17) | Second, some mechanical rights have been removed from CMOs' repertoire. In particular, CMOs have lost the right to grant online licences to an important part of the mechanical rights in Anglo-American repertoire, that is, the songs of authors registered with collecting societies in the UK, Ireland, the US and other English-speaking countries. Authors in these English-speaking countries have traditionally assigned their mechanical rights to music publishers, the companies that assist authors in creating songs and obtaining payment for the use of their songs. Because publishers had obtained the mechanical rights through assignment, they were able to withdraw their mechanical rights from the CMO-system and license their mechanical rights directly themselves. By contrast, in respect of non-Anglo-American repertoires, authors have traditionally not assigned their mechanical rights to publishers. Instead, authors traditionally registered their mechanical rights with a CMO. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Second, some mechanical rights have been removed from CMOs' repertoire. In particular, CMOs have lost the right to grant online licences to an important part of the mechanical rights in Anglo-American repertoire, that is, the songs of authors registered with collecting societies in the UK, Ireland, the US and other English-speaking countries. Authors in these English-speaking countries have traditionally assigned their mechanical rights to music publishers, the companies that assist authors in creating songs and obtaining payment for the use of their songs. Because publishers had obtained the mechanical rights through assignment, they were able to withdraw their mechanical rights from the CMO-system and license their mechanical rights directly themselves. By contrast, in respect of non-Anglo-American repertoires, authors have traditionally not assigned their mechanical rights to publishers. Instead, authors traditionally registered their mechanical rights with a CMO.

| (18) | The publishers that have withdrawn their online mechanical rights from CMO repertoires are known as option 3 publishers. That name stems from the impact assessment preceding the Commission's 2005 recommendation on the cross-border collective management of copyright for online use. The 2005 recommendation recommended, among others, that publishers should have the right to withdraw their online rights and transfer the multi-territorial management of those rights to a CMO of their choice. The existing option 3 publishers include all major publishers and some smaller publishers. Option 3 publishers normally license their repertoire on a multi-territorial basis, in cooperation with one or more CMOs acting as service provider or agent. The withdrawal by option 3 publishers only concerns the mechanical rights for online use, not for offline use. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The publishers that have withdrawn their online mechanical rights from CMO repertoires are known as option 3 publishers. That name stems from the impact assessment preceding the Commission's 2005 recommendation on the cross-border collective management of copyright for online use. The 2005 recommendation recommended, among others, that publishers should have the right to withdraw their online rights and transfer the multi-territorial management of those rights to a CMO of their choice. The existing option 3 publishers include all major publishers and some smaller publishers. Option 3 publishers normally license their repertoire on a multi-territorial basis, in cooperation with one or more CMOs acting as service provider or agent. The withdrawal by option 3 publishers only concerns the mechanical rights for online use, not for offline use.

| (19) | The two developments described above, that is, the withdrawal of Anglo-American mechanical rights by option 3 publishers and the move towards multi-territorial licensing by some but not all CMOs, has made it complicated for online platforms to obtain the necessary licenses. Online platforms not only have to obtain licences from all CMOs but also a number of additional licences from option 3 publishers. Moreover, these developments have created challenges for CMOs' licence administration and processing systems, as the fragmentation of repertoire has made it more difficult to accurately calculate the royalties due. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The two developments described above, that is, the withdrawal of Anglo-American mechanical rights by option 3 publishers and the move towards multi-territorial licensing by some but not all CMOs, has made it complicated for online platforms to obtain the necessary licenses. Online platforms not only have to obtain licences from all CMOs but also a number of additional licences from option 3 publishers. Moreover, these developments have created challenges for CMOs' licence administration and processing systems, as the fragmentation of repertoire has made it more difficult to accurately calculate the royalties due.

| (20) | This situation has recently triggered regulatory intervention by the EU in the form of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (the ‘CRM Directive’). The CRM Directive was adopted in February 2014 and establishes a framework to promote the aggregation of different music repertoires for multi-territorial online licensing by CMOs. The CMOs that engage in multi-territorial licensing must, however, comply with a set of specific requirements laid down in the CRM Directive. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

This situation has recently triggered regulatory intervention by the EU in the form of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (the ‘CRM Directive’). The CRM Directive was adopted in February 2014 and establishes a framework to promote the aggregation of different music repertoires for multi-territorial online licensing by CMOs. The CMOs that engage in multi-territorial licensing must, however, comply with a set of specific requirements laid down in the CRM Directive.

3.   The role of CMOs in providing copyright administration services to option 3 publishers and other CMOs

| (21) | As mentioned, option 3 publishers license their mechanical rights themselves across the EEA. This multi-territorial online licensing activity requires negotiating licences, monitoring the use of these licences, calculating the royalties due and collecting royalty payments from online platforms for the songs played. Option 3 publishers currently rely on CMOs to conduct this work. The services provided by CMOs to option 3 publishers in relation to their copyright licensing activities are called copyright administration services. To enable CMOs to perform these services, option 3 publishers use CMOs as their service provider or agent. CMOs then negotiate the licensing agreement with online platforms but the licensing terms must be approved by the option 3 publisher. CMOs can also provide copyright administration services to other CMOs. For instance, a CMO may prefer not to set up the processing tools required for multi-territorial licensing itself and instead ask another CMO to engage in multi-territorial licensing on its behalf. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

As mentioned, option 3 publishers license their mechanical rights themselves across the EEA. This multi-territorial online licensing activity requires negotiating licences, monitoring the use of these licences, calculating the royalties due and collecting royalty payments from online platforms for the songs played. Option 3 publishers currently rely on CMOs to conduct this work. The services provided by CMOs to option 3 publishers in relation to their copyright licensing activities are called copyright administration services. To enable CMOs to perform these services, option 3 publishers use CMOs as their service provider or agent. CMOs then negotiate the licensing agreement with online platforms but the licensing terms must be approved by the option 3 publisher. CMOs can also provide copyright administration services to other CMOs. For instance, a CMO may prefer not to set up the processing tools required for multi-territorial licensing itself and instead ask another CMO to engage in multi-territorial licensing on its behalf.

4.   The JV

| (22) | The JV which the Notifying Parties intend to create will have two main functions. First, the JV will grant multi-territorial online licenses to the combined repertoire of PRSfM, STIM and GEMA to online platforms that are active in more than one country, i.e. multi-territorial online platforms. According to the Notifying Parties, the JV is a direct response to the CRM Directive, since that Directive promotes the aggregation of repertoires for multi-territorial online licensing. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The JV which the Notifying Parties intend to create will have two main functions. First, the JV will grant multi-territorial online licenses to the combined repertoire of PRSfM, STIM and GEMA to online platforms that are active in more than one country, i.e. multi-territorial online platforms. According to the Notifying Parties, the JV is a direct response to the CRM Directive, since that Directive promotes the aggregation of repertoires for multi-territorial online licensing.

| (23) | Second, the JV will offer copyright administration services to option 3 publishers and to other CMOs. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Second, the JV will offer copyright administration services to option 3 publishers and to other CMOs.

B.   The relevant product and geographic markets

1.   Market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences

| (24) | The JV will provide copyright administration services to option 3 publishers and CMOs in relation to transactional (3) multi-territorial licences. Because the administration of multi-territorial transactional licences is more complex than the administration of mono-territorial (blanket) licences, the Commission considers that the relevant product market is the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The JV will provide copyright administration services to option 3 publishers and CMOs in relation to transactional (3) multi-territorial licences. Because the administration of multi-territorial transactional licences is more complex than the administration of mono-territorial (blanket) licences, the Commission considers that the relevant product market is the market for the provision of copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences.

| (25) | The Commission considers that this market is EEA-wide in scope. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission considers that this market is EEA-wide in scope.

2.   Online licensing market

| (26) | The JV will license online rights in songs on a multi-territorial basis. These rights include mechanical and performing rights. In Sony/Mubadala/EMI Music Publishing, the Commission defined a separate market for the licensing of online rights in songs. The Commission also defines the relevant product market in this case as the market for the licensing of online rights in songs or, in short, the online licensing market. It is possible that the online licensing market encompasses a narrower market, namely the online multi-territorial licensing market or an even narrower market, namely the online multi-territorial licensing market in which CMOs (not option 3 publishers) are active. The Commission does not need to decide whether this is the case, however, since even in these narrower markets the transaction does not raise competition concerns. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The JV will license online rights in songs on a multi-territorial basis. These rights include mechanical and performing rights. In Sony/Mubadala/EMI Music Publishing, the Commission defined a separate market for the licensing of online rights in songs. The Commission also defines the relevant product market in this case as the market for the licensing of online rights in songs or, in short, the online licensing market. It is possible that the online licensing market encompasses a narrower market, namely the online multi-territorial licensing market or an even narrower market, namely the online multi-territorial licensing market in which CMOs (not option 3 publishers) are active. The Commission does not need to decide whether this is the case, however, since even in these narrower markets the transaction does not raise competition concerns.

| (27) | The geographic scope of the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights is EEA-wide. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The geographic scope of the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights is EEA-wide.

C.   Competitive assessment

1.   Market for copyright administration services in relation to the administration of transactional multi-territorial licences

| (28) | Copyright administration services in relation the administration of transactional multi-territorial licences are provided to option 3 publishers and CMOs. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Copyright administration services in relation the administration of transactional multi-territorial licences are provided to option 3 publishers and CMOs.

| (29) | At present, four CMOs provide most of the copyright administration services to option 3 publishers. Those are PRSfM, the French CMO SACEM, GEMA and STIM. The remaining share of the market is held by a few medium-sized CMOs. Copyright administration services to CMOs in relation to multi-territorial licences have only just started to develop. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

At present, four CMOs provide most of the copyright administration services to option 3 publishers. Those are PRSfM, the French CMO SACEM, GEMA and STIM. The remaining share of the market is held by a few medium-sized CMOs. Copyright administration services to CMOs in relation to multi-territorial licences have only just started to develop.

| (30) | The JV will combine the activities of three of the four CMOs that provide most of the copyright administration services to option 3 publishers. It may also limit the number of actual or potential combinations of CMOs (‘hubs’) that are currently providing and will provide copyright administration services to CMOs in the future. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The JV will combine the activities of three of the four CMOs that provide most of the copyright administration services to option 3 publishers. It may also limit the number of actual or potential combinations of CMOs (‘hubs’) that are currently providing and will provide copyright administration services to CMOs in the future.

| (31) | However, the Commission considers that the anti-competitive effect of the transaction does not stem from the increase in concentration resulting from the transaction, but from an increase in the barriers to entry and expansion. With respect to option 3 publishers, the increase in market concentration resulting from the transaction is small because, already today, PRSfM and GEMA provide copyright administration services jointly and therefore do not fully compete with each other. Moreover, STIM would lose most of its market share once the mandate granted to it by Kobalt will expire. Hence, the increase in market concentration is small. With respect to CMOs, while the transaction may limit the number of actual or potential hubs, the Commission takes the view that the competitive landscape is quite fragmented and still developing so that competing hubs could still develop. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

However, the Commission considers that the anti-competitive effect of the transaction does not stem from the increase in concentration resulting from the transaction, but from an increase in the barriers to entry and expansion. With respect to option 3 publishers, the increase in market concentration resulting from the transaction is small because, already today, PRSfM and GEMA provide copyright administration services jointly and therefore do not fully compete with each other. Moreover, STIM would lose most of its market share once the mandate granted to it by Kobalt will expire. Hence, the increase in market concentration is small. With respect to CMOs, while the transaction may limit the number of actual or potential hubs, the Commission takes the view that the competitive landscape is quite fragmented and still developing so that competing hubs could still develop.

| (32) | However, the transaction would raise barriers to entry and expansion. At present, barriers to entry for CMOs are low. Small and medium-sized CMOs could enter the market and start providing copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers without much difficulty. They have access to copyright databases, which are crucial to provide copyright administration services because they make clear, for each song, who holds which rights. Moreover, in particular as regards services provided to option 3 publishers, CMOs have ongoing relationships with publishers because publishers are members of CMOs. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

However, the transaction would raise barriers to entry and expansion. At present, barriers to entry for CMOs are low. Small and medium-sized CMOs could enter the market and start providing copyright administration services to CMOs and option 3 publishers without much difficulty. They have access to copyright databases, which are crucial to provide copyright administration services because they make clear, for each song, who holds which rights. Moreover, in particular as regards services provided to option 3 publishers, CMOs have ongoing relationships with publishers because publishers are members of CMOs.

| (33) | The transaction will make entry by CMOs more difficult for three reasons. First, because of the JV's increased presence in the market, PRSfM would have a greater incentive to use its control over Anglo performing rights to frustrate or delay entry of a competitor. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The transaction will make entry by CMOs more difficult for three reasons. First, because of the JV's increased presence in the market, PRSfM would have a greater incentive to use its control over Anglo performing rights to frustrate or delay entry of a competitor.

| (34) | Second, when CMOs rely on the JV for copyright administration services, they are likely to contribute their data to the JV's copyright database called ICE. They would then stop investing in their own database and become dependent on the JV. As a result, they would be locked into the ICE database and unable to switch to another CMO providing copyright administration services. In addition, the JV could decide to offer the different types of services as a bundle as opposed to on a stand-alone basis, thereby making it, again, difficult for customers to rely on another source for certain services. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Second, when CMOs rely on the JV for copyright administration services, they are likely to contribute their data to the JV's copyright database called ICE. They would then stop investing in their own database and become dependent on the JV. As a result, they would be locked into the ICE database and unable to switch to another CMO providing copyright administration services. In addition, the JV could decide to offer the different types of services as a bundle as opposed to on a stand-alone basis, thereby making it, again, difficult for customers to rely on another source for certain services.

| (35) | Third, when option 3 publishers or CMOs rely on the JV for copyright administration services, they would have to use the JV's services exclusively. This exclusivity makes it more difficult for new CMOs to enter the market and for existing CMOs to expand. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Third, when option 3 publishers or CMOs rely on the JV for copyright administration services, they would have to use the JV's services exclusively. This exclusivity makes it more difficult for new CMOs to enter the market and for existing CMOs to expand.

| (36) | The Commission concludes that the transaction would make it more difficult for other CMOs to enter the market and for existing CMOs to expand. The transaction would therefore significantly impede effective competition in the EEA-wide market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

The Commission concludes that the transaction would make it more difficult for other CMOs to enter the market and for existing CMOs to expand. The transaction would therefore significantly impede effective competition in the EEA-wide market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences.

2.   Online licensing market

| (37) | The Commission calculated the JV's market share by summing the market shares of the repertoires that will likely be included in the JV's licence. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The Commission calculated the JV's market share by summing the market shares of the repertoires that will likely be included in the JV's licence.

| (38) | The Commission calculated market shares based on various different possible product market definitions. The JV's market share is higher on the EEA-wide multi-territorial licensing market than on the EEA-wide licensing market that includes both mono-territorial and multi-territorial rights. On the narrower multi-territorial online licensing market, the JV's market share would be [20-30] % after the transaction.










  Pre-transaction | Post-transaction |
| --- | --- | --- |
| PRSfM | STIM | GEMA | MCPS | PRSfM | JV |
| [10-20] % | [5-10] % | [5-10] % | [5-10] % | [5-10] % | [20-30] % |

(38)

The Commission calculated market shares based on various different possible product market definitions. The JV's market share is higher on the EEA-wide multi-territorial licensing market than on the EEA-wide licensing market that includes both mono-territorial and multi-territorial rights. On the narrower multi-territorial online licensing market, the JV's market share would be [20-30] % after the transaction.

Pre-transaction

Post-transaction

PRSfM

STIM

GEMA

MCPS

PRSfM

JV

[10-20] %

[5-10] %

[5-10] %

[5-10] %

[5-10] %

[20-30] %

| (39) | On an even narrower market, the EEA-wide market for multi-territorial licences granted by CMOs (and excluding licences granted by option 3 publishers), the JV's market share would be even higher at [30-40] % |
| --- | --- |

(39)

On an even narrower market, the EEA-wide market for multi-territorial licences granted by CMOs (and excluding licences granted by option 3 publishers), the JV's market share would be even higher at [30-40] %

| (40) | Market shares are a starting point for the assessment of the JV's market position vis-à-vis online platforms. However, given the specificities of the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights, the Commission also attaches considerable importance to other elements. The specificities of this market include the fact that CMOs have a monopoly on the licensing of their national repertoire and the fact that there is a certain degree of complementarity between the different repertoires offered by different CMOs. This is evidenced by the fact that many online platforms do not license only one repertoire but several repertoires. Hence, the effect of combining several repertoires cannot be assessed on the basis of market shares alone. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

Market shares are a starting point for the assessment of the JV's market position vis-à-vis online platforms. However, given the specificities of the market for the licensing of online music publishing rights, the Commission also attaches considerable importance to other elements. The specificities of this market include the fact that CMOs have a monopoly on the licensing of their national repertoire and the fact that there is a certain degree of complementarity between the different repertoires offered by different CMOs. This is evidenced by the fact that many online platforms do not license only one repertoire but several repertoires. Hence, the effect of combining several repertoires cannot be assessed on the basis of market shares alone.

| (41) | The Commission has therefore also conducted an empirical analysis on how the size of a repertoire affects the CMO's bargaining position and, ultimately, the licensing terms for online platforms. To this end the Commission relied on four sources of empirical evidence. The Commission: (1) assessed the evidence from the market investigation; (2) reviewed the Notifying Parties' internal analyses and assessments; (3) reviewed the commercial agreements between several CMOs and online platforms; and (4) conducted a quantitative analysis of royalty payments made by online platforms to CMOs. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

The Commission has therefore also conducted an empirical analysis on how the size of a repertoire affects the CMO's bargaining position and, ultimately, the licensing terms for online platforms. To this end the Commission relied on four sources of empirical evidence. The Commission: (1) assessed the evidence from the market investigation; (2) reviewed the Notifying Parties' internal analyses and assessments; (3) reviewed the commercial agreements between several CMOs and online platforms; and (4) conducted a quantitative analysis of royalty payments made by online platforms to CMOs.

| (42) | The analysis of the commercial agreements and the quantitative analysis did not show a systematic relationship between larger repertoires and better licensing terms. The market investigation and the analysis of the Notifying Parties' own analyses and assessments were mixed, meaning they contained some elements suggesting increased bargaining power and some elements suggesting the contrary. On balance, the Commission considered there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the JV's larger repertoire will give it increased bargaining power and, hence, lead to licensing terms that are worse for online platforms. Based on these elements, the Commission concludes that it is unlikely that the creation of the JV will lead to more onerous licensing terms for online platforms. It is therefore unlikely that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition in the EEA-wide market for the licensing of online music publishing rights. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

The analysis of the commercial agreements and the quantitative analysis did not show a systematic relationship between larger repertoires and better licensing terms. The market investigation and the analysis of the Notifying Parties' own analyses and assessments were mixed, meaning they contained some elements suggesting increased bargaining power and some elements suggesting the contrary. On balance, the Commission considered there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the JV's larger repertoire will give it increased bargaining power and, hence, lead to licensing terms that are worse for online platforms. Based on these elements, the Commission concludes that it is unlikely that the creation of the JV will lead to more onerous licensing terms for online platforms. It is therefore unlikely that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition in the EEA-wide market for the licensing of online music publishing rights.

3.   Other aspects

| (43) | The Commission also assessed whether the transaction would lead to anti-competitive effects because it would lead to the exchange of commercially sensitive information. In view of the business separation measures that the Notifying Parties will put in place and the fact that the transaction will not significantly change the current situation as regards the aggregation of commercially sensitive information, the Commission concludes that the transaction would not lead to a significant impediment to effective competition as a result of an increased exchange of commercially sensitive information. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

The Commission also assessed whether the transaction would lead to anti-competitive effects because it would lead to the exchange of commercially sensitive information. In view of the business separation measures that the Notifying Parties will put in place and the fact that the transaction will not significantly change the current situation as regards the aggregation of commercially sensitive information, the Commission concludes that the transaction would not lead to a significant impediment to effective competition as a result of an increased exchange of commercially sensitive information.

| (44) | The Commission also assessed possible spill-over effects because the Notifying Parties would retain certain activities in the online licensing market in which the JV will be active. Based on the differences in customers, geographical scope of the licence and repertoire covered, and in light of the business separation that the Notifying Parties will put in place, the Commission does not consider that the transaction makes coordination and, hence, spill-over effects between the Notifying Parties more likely. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

The Commission also assessed possible spill-over effects because the Notifying Parties would retain certain activities in the online licensing market in which the JV will be active. Based on the differences in customers, geographical scope of the licence and repertoire covered, and in light of the business separation that the Notifying Parties will put in place, the Commission does not consider that the transaction makes coordination and, hence, spill-over effects between the Notifying Parties more likely.

4.   Conclusion

| (45) | The transaction would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the EEA-wide market for the copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to the administration of transactional multi-territorial licences. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

The transaction would lead to a significant impediment to effective competition in the EEA-wide market for the copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to the administration of transactional multi-territorial licences.

D.   Commitments submitted by the Notifying Parties

| (46) | The overall aim of the commitments is to keep the EEA-wide market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences contestable, that is, to ensure that new CMOs are able to enter the market and existing CMOs can expand. The commitments contain three key elements. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

The overall aim of the commitments is to keep the EEA-wide market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences contestable, that is, to ensure that new CMOs are able to enter the market and existing CMOs can expand. The commitments contain three key elements.

| (47) | The first key element addresses the Commission's concern that PRSfM could use its performing rights to make it more difficult for other CMOs to enter the market. At present, when CMOs provide copyright administration services to option 3 publishers, they obtain a mandate from PRSfM allowing them to negotiate licences for PRSfM's performing rights. This way, the CMOs can negotiate about both the option 3 publisher's mechanical rights and the matching performing rights controlled by PRSfM. PRSfM commits not to make the grant of such a mandate conditional upon the CMO or option 3 publisher relying on the JV for copyright administration services. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

The first key element addresses the Commission's concern that PRSfM could use its performing rights to make it more difficult for other CMOs to enter the market. At present, when CMOs provide copyright administration services to option 3 publishers, they obtain a mandate from PRSfM allowing them to negotiate licences for PRSfM's performing rights. This way, the CMOs can negotiate about both the option 3 publisher's mechanical rights and the matching performing rights controlled by PRSfM. PRSfM commits not to make the grant of such a mandate conditional upon the CMO or option 3 publisher relying on the JV for copyright administration services.

| (48) | Apart from a mandate to negotiate about PRSfM's performing rights, CMOs that provide services to option 3 publishers also need to obtain the consent of PRSfM to each specific licence agreement that the CMO negotiates on behalf of the option 3 publisher. PRSfM commits not to make the grant of consent to these licensing agreements conditional upon the CMO or the option 3 publisher relying on the JV for copyright administration services. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

Apart from a mandate to negotiate about PRSfM's performing rights, CMOs that provide services to option 3 publishers also need to obtain the consent of PRSfM to each specific licence agreement that the CMO negotiates on behalf of the option 3 publisher. PRSfM commits not to make the grant of consent to these licensing agreements conditional upon the CMO or the option 3 publisher relying on the JV for copyright administration services.

| (49) | The second key element of the commitments aims to ensure that CMOs who rely on the JV do not become ‘locked in’, which would make it more difficult for new CMOs to enter the market. Among others, the Notifying Parties commit to give CMOs a choice as to the specific services they want to use, rather than bundling all services. The Notifying Parties also commit to offer copyright administration services on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. They also commit to allow CMOs relying on the JV's database to exit the database and obtain an extract of the data relating to their works. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

The second key element of the commitments aims to ensure that CMOs who rely on the JV do not become ‘locked in’, which would make it more difficult for new CMOs to enter the market. Among others, the Notifying Parties commit to give CMOs a choice as to the specific services they want to use, rather than bundling all services. The Notifying Parties also commit to offer copyright administration services on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. They also commit to allow CMOs relying on the JV's database to exit the database and obtain an extract of the data relating to their works.

| (50) | The third key element of the commitments is a commitment that the JV will not enter into exclusive or sole mandates with any customer of the JV's front-office. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

The third key element of the commitments is a commitment that the JV will not enter into exclusive or sole mandates with any customer of the JV's front-office.

| (51) | The duration of the commitments is 10 years. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

The duration of the commitments is 10 years.

| (52) | The Commission considers that the commitments will ensure that the market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences remains contestable. The first key element of the commitments removes PRSfM's ability to use its performing rights to force CMOs or option 3 publishers to use the JV's services. The second key element ensures that CMOs will be able to switch away from the JV to another CMO that offers copyright administration services. The third key element ensures this not only for CMOs but also for option 3 publishers. Together, these commitments ensure that new CMOs will be able to enter the market and existing CMOs will be able to expand their services. The possibility of entry and expansion will exert a competitive constraint on the JV and leads the Commission to the conclusion that, subject to compliance with the commitments, the transaction will not have anti-competitive effects. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

The Commission considers that the commitments will ensure that the market for copyright administration services provided to CMOs and option 3 publishers in relation to transactional multi-territorial licences remains contestable. The first key element of the commitments removes PRSfM's ability to use its performing rights to force CMOs or option 3 publishers to use the JV's services. The second key element ensures that CMOs will be able to switch away from the JV to another CMO that offers copyright administration services. The third key element ensures this not only for CMOs but also for option 3 publishers. Together, these commitments ensure that new CMOs will be able to enter the market and existing CMOs will be able to expand their services. The possibility of entry and expansion will exert a competitive constraint on the JV and leads the Commission to the conclusion that, subject to compliance with the commitments, the transaction will not have anti-competitive effects.

| (53) | In its decision, the Commission therefore reaches the conclusion that, on the basis of the commitments submitted by the Notifying Parties, the notified concentration would not significantly impede effective competition. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

In its decision, the Commission therefore reaches the conclusion that, on the basis of the commitments submitted by the Notifying Parties, the notified concentration would not significantly impede effective competition.

V.   CONCLUSION

| (54) | For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the concentration as modified by the commitments submitted on 10 April 2015 will not significantly impede effective competition in the Internal Market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the concentration as modified by the commitments submitted on 10 April 2015 will not significantly impede effective competition in the Internal Market or in a substantial part of it.

| (55) | Consequently the concentration is declared compatible with the Internal Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Consequently the concentration is declared compatible with the Internal Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

---

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

(2)  For a description of the activities of ‘option 3 publishers’ see paragraphs 16 and 17.

(3)  The amount due for a transactional licence is calculated on the basis of each individual stream or download of a song.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/19

---

Update of the list of border crossing points referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1)

(2015/C 341/09)

The publication of the list of border crossing points referred to in Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in conformity with Article 34 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a regular update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Home Affairs.

HUNGARY

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 242, 23.8.2013

LIST OF BORDER CROSSING POINTS

HUNGARY-CROATIA

Land borders

| (1) | Barcs – Terezino Polje |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Barcs – Terezino Polje

| (2) | Beremend – Baranjsko Petrovo Selo |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Beremend – Baranjsko Petrovo Selo

| (3) | Berzence – Gola |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Berzence – Gola

| (4) | Drávaszabolcs – Donji Miholjac |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Drávaszabolcs – Donji Miholjac

| (5) | Drávaszabolcs (river, on request) (2) |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Drávaszabolcs (river, on request) (2)

| (6) | Gyékényes – Koprivnica (rail) |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Gyékényes – Koprivnica (rail)

| (7) | Letenye – Goričan I |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Letenye – Goričan I

| (8) | Letenye – Goričan II (highway) |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Letenye – Goričan II (highway)

| (9) | Magyarbóly – Beli Manastir (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Magyarbóly – Beli Manastir (railway)

| (10) | Mohács (river) |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Mohács (river)

| (11) | Murakeresztúr – Kotoriba (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Murakeresztúr – Kotoriba (railway)

| (12) | Udvar – Dubosevica |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Udvar – Dubosevica

HUNGARY-SERBIA

Land borders

| (1) | Ásotthalom – Backi Vinograd (3) |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Ásotthalom – Backi Vinograd (3)

| (2) | Bácsalmás – Bajmok (4) |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Bácsalmás – Bajmok (4)

| (3) | Hercegszántó – Bački Breg |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Hercegszántó – Bački Breg

| (4) | Kelebia – Subotica (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Kelebia – Subotica (railway)

| (5) | Mohács (river) |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Mohács (river)

| (6) | Röszke – Horgoš (Horgos) (road) used for those international vehicles not allowed to cross on motorway as well as for pedestrian and bicycle traffic) (5) |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Röszke – Horgoš (Horgos) (road) used for those international vehicles not allowed to cross on motorway as well as for pedestrian and bicycle traffic) (5)

| (7) | Röszke – Horgoš (highway) |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Röszke – Horgoš (highway)

| (8) | Röszke – Horgoš (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Röszke – Horgoš (railway)

| (9) | Szeged (river) (6) |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Szeged (river) (6)

| (10) | Tiszasziget – Đjala (Gyála) (7) |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Tiszasziget – Đjala (Gyála) (7)

| (11) | Tompa – Kelebija |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Tompa – Kelebija

HUNGARY-ROMANIA

Land borders

| (1) | Ágerdőmajor (Tiborszállás) – Carei (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Ágerdőmajor (Tiborszállás) – Carei (railway)

| (2) | Ártánd – Borş |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Ártánd – Borş

| (3) | Battonya – Turnu |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Battonya – Turnu

| (4) | Biharkeresztes – Episcopia Bihorului (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Biharkeresztes – Episcopia Bihorului (railway)

| (5) | Csanádpalota – Nagylak (Nădlac) (motorway) |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Csanádpalota – Nagylak (Nădlac) (motorway)

| (6) | Csengersima – Petea |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Csengersima – Petea

| (7) | Gyula – Vărşand |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Gyula – Vărşand

| (8) | Kiszombor – Cenad |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Kiszombor – Cenad

| (9) | Kötegyán – Salonta (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Kötegyán – Salonta (railway)

| (10) | Létavértes – Săcuieni (8) |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Létavértes – Săcuieni (8)

| (11) | Lőkösháza – Curtici (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Lőkösháza – Curtici (railway)

| (12) | Méhkerék – Salonta |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Méhkerék – Salonta

| (13) | Nagylak – Nădlac (road) |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Nagylak – Nădlac (road)

| (14) | Nyírábrány – Valea lui Mihai (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Nyírábrány – Valea lui Mihai (railway)

| (15) | Nyírábrány – Valea lui Mihai |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Nyírábrány – Valea lui Mihai

| (16) | Vállaj – Urziceni |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Vállaj – Urziceni

HUNGARY-UKRAINE

Land borders

| (1) | Barabás – Kosino (9) |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Barabás – Kosino (9)

| (2) | Beregsurány – Luzhanka |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Beregsurány – Luzhanka

| (3) | Eperjeske – Salovka (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Eperjeske – Salovka (railway)

| (4) | Lónya – Dzvinkove (10) |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Lónya – Dzvinkove (10)

| (5) | Tiszabecs – Vylok |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Tiszabecs – Vylok

| (6) | Záhony – Čop (railway) |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Záhony – Čop (railway)

| (7) | Záhony – Čop |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Záhony – Čop

Air borders

International airports:

| (1) | Budapest Nemzetközi Repülőtér |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Budapest Nemzetközi Repülőtér

| (2) | Debrecen Repülőtér |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Debrecen Repülőtér

| (3) | Sármellék |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Sármellék

Aerodromes (operating only on request):

| (1) | Békéscsaba |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Békéscsaba

| (2) | Budaörs |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Budaörs

| (3) | Fertőszentmiklós |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Fertőszentmiklós

| (4) | Győr-Pér |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Győr-Pér

| (5) | Kecskemét |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Kecskemét

| (6) | Nyíregyháza |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Nyíregyháza

| (7) | Pápa |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Pápa

| (8) | Pécs-Pogány |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Pécs-Pogány

| (9) | Siófok-Balatonkiliti |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Siófok-Balatonkiliti

| (10) | Szeged |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Szeged

| (11) | Szolnok |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Szolnok

List of previous publications

| | OJ C 316, 28.12.2007, p. 1 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 316, 28.12.2007, p. 1

| | OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 16 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 16

| | OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 9 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 177, 12.7.2008, p. 9

| | OJ C 200, 6.8.2008, p. 10 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 200, 6.8.2008, p. 10

| | OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 13 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 13

| | OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 10 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 3, 8.1.2009, p. 10

| | OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 10 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 10

| | OJ C 64, 19.3.2009, p. 20 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 64, 19.3.2009, p. 20

| | OJ C 99, 30.4.2009, p. 7 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 99, 30.4.2009, p. 7

| | OJ C 229, 23.9.2009, p. 28 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 229, 23.9.2009, p. 28

| | OJ C 263, 5.11.2009, p. 22 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 263, 5.11.2009, p. 22

| | OJ C 298, 8.12.2009, p. 17 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 298, 8.12.2009, p. 17

| | OJ C 74, 24.3.2010, p. 13 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 74, 24.3.2010, p. 13

| | OJ C 326, 3.12.2010, p. 17 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 326, 3.12.2010, p. 17

| | OJ C 355, 29.12.2010, p. 34 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 355, 29.12.2010, p. 34

| | OJ C 22, 22.1.2011, p. 22 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 22, 22.1.2011, p. 22

| | OJ C 37, 5.2.2011, p. 12 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 37, 5.2.2011, p. 12

| | OJ C 149, 20.5.2011, p. 8 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 149, 20.5.2011, p. 8

| | OJ C 190, 30.6.2011, p. 17 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 190, 30.6.2011, p. 17

| | OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 14 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 14

| | OJ C 210, 16.7.2011, p. 30 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 210, 16.7.2011, p. 30

| | OJ C 271, 14.9.2011, p. 18 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 271, 14.9.2011, p. 18

| | OJ C 356, 6.12.2011, p. 12 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 356, 6.12.2011, p. 12

| | OJ C 111, 18.4.2012, p. 3 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 111, 18.4.2012, p. 3

| | OJ C 183, 23.6.2012, p. 7 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 183, 23.6.2012, p. 7

| | OJ C 313, 17.10.2012, p. 11 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 313, 17.10.2012, p. 11

| | OJ C 394, 20.12.2012, p. 22 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 394, 20.12.2012, p. 22

| | OJ C 51, 22.2.2013, p. 9 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 51, 22.2.2013, p. 9

| | OJ C 167, 13.6.2013, p. 9 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 167, 13.6.2013, p. 9

| | OJ C 242, 23.8.2013, p. 2 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 242, 23.8.2013, p. 2

| | OJ C 275, 24.9.2013, p. 7 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 275, 24.9.2013, p. 7

| | OJ C 314, 29.10.2013, p. 5 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 314, 29.10.2013, p. 5

| | OJ C 324, 9.11.2013, p. 6 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 324, 9.11.2013, p. 6

| | OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 4 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 57, 28.2.2014, p. 4

| | OJ C 167, 4.6.2014, p. 9 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 167, 4.6.2014, p. 9

| | OJ C 244, 26.7.2014, p. 22 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 244, 26.7.2014, p. 22

| | OJ C 332, 24.9.2014, p. 12 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 332, 24.9.2014, p. 12

| | OJ C 420, 22.11.2014, p. 9 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 420, 22.11.2014, p. 9

| | OJ C 72, 28.2.2015, p. 17 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 72, 28.2.2015, p. 17

| | OJ C 126, 18.4.2015, p. 10 |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 126, 18.4.2015, p. 10

| | OJ C 229, 14.7.2015, p. 5. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 229, 14.7.2015, p. 5.

---

(1)  See the list of previous publications at the end of this update.

(2)  07:00 – 19:00

(3)  07:00 – 19:00

(4)  07:00 – 19:00

(5)  07:00 – 19:00

(6)  07:00 – 19:00

(7)  07:00 – 19:00

(8)  06:00 – 22:00

(9)  07:00 – 19:00

(10)  08:00 – 16:00

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/23

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.7737 — Honeywell/Elster)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 341/10)

| 1. | On 9 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Honeywell International Inc. of the USA (‘Honeywell’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the Elster Division (‘Elster’) of Melrose Industries PLC of the United Kingdom by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 9 October 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Honeywell International Inc. of the USA (‘Honeywell’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the Elster Division (‘Elster’) of Melrose Industries PLC of the United Kingdom by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | Honeywell is a diversified technology and manufacturing company that is active worldwide in three business segments: (i) Aerospace, (ii) Automation and Control Solutions and (iii) Performance Materials and Technologies. Amongst others it manufactures and distributes integrated systems and components such as valves, burners and meters for heating applications and the measurement and regulation of gas flows. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

Honeywell is a diversified technology and manufacturing company that is active worldwide in three business segments: (i) Aerospace, (ii) Automation and Control Solutions and (iii) Performance Materials and Technologies. Amongst others it manufactures and distributes integrated systems and components such as valves, burners and meters for heating applications and the measurement and regulation of gas flows.

| — | Elster is a global supplier of integrated systems and components such as valves, burners and meters for heating applications and the measurement and regulation of gas flows. Elster also manufactures and supplies electricity and water metering products. |
| --- | --- |

—

Elster is a global supplier of integrated systems and components such as valves, burners and meters for heating applications and the measurement and regulation of gas flows. Elster also manufactures and supplies electricity and water metering products.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7737 — Honeywell/Elster, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7737 — Honeywell/Elster, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/24

---

Application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(2015/C 341/11)

The European Commission has approved this minor amendment in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 (1).

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A MINOR AMENDMENT

Application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
   (2)

‘WALDVIERTLER GRAUMOHN’

EU No: AT-PDO-0217-01273 — 4.11.2014

PDO ( X ) PGI ( ) TSG ( )

1.   Applicant group and legitimate interest

| Waldviertler Sonderkulturenverein |
| --- |
| Oberwaltenreith 10 |
| 3533 Friedersbach |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| Tel. +43 28267443 |
| Fax +43 28267443550 |
| Email: naturstoffe@waldland.at |

Waldviertler Sonderkulturenverein

Oberwaltenreith 10

3533 Friedersbach

ÖSTERREICH

Tel. +43 28267443

Fax +43 28267443550

Email: naturstoffe@waldland.at

The group is the original applicant group which has changed its name and has a legitimate interest in the correction/updating of the specification.

2.   Member State or Third Country

Austria

3.   Heading in the product specification affected by the amendment(s)

| — | ☐ | Description of product |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | ☐ | Proof of origin |
| — | ☐ | Method of production |
| — | ☐ | Link with the geographical area |
| — | ☐ | Labelling |
| — | ☒ | Other (Change of name of the applicant group, the inspection body, and amendments reflecting that change) |

—

☐

Description of product

—

☐

Proof of origin

—

☐

Method of production

—

☐

Link with the geographical area

—

☐

Labelling

—

☒

Other (Change of name of the applicant group, the inspection body, and amendments reflecting that change)

4.   Type of amendment(s)

| — | ☒ | Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires no amendment to the published single document |
| --- | --- | --- |
| — | ☐ | Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires an amendment to the published single document |
| — | ☐ | Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, for which a single document (or equivalent) has not been published |
| — | ☐ | Amendment to product specification of registered TSG to be qualified as minor in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 |

—

☒

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires no amendment to the published single document

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, that requires an amendment to the published single document

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered PDO or PGI to be qualified as minor in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, for which a single document (or equivalent) has not been published

—

☐

Amendment to product specification of registered TSG to be qualified as minor in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

5.   Amendment(s)

The specification (consisting of the summary and material part) relating to the protected name ‘Waldviertler Graumohn (PDO)’ is amended as follows:

| — | Summary:







  — | In Section 1 the details of the responsible department in the Member State are updated to read:






  ‘Austrian Patent Office |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Dresdner Strasse 87 |
| 1200 Wien |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| Tel. +43 1534240 |
| Fax +43 153424535 |
| Email: herkunftsangaben@patentamt.at’ |

—

Summary:

—

In Section 1 the details of the responsible department in the Member State are updated to read:

‘Austrian Patent Office

Dresdner Strasse 87

1200 Wien

ÖSTERREICH

Tel. +43 1534240

Fax +43 153424535

Email: herkunftsangaben@patentamt.at’

| — | In Section 2 the name and address of the applicant group are amended as follows:






  ‘Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association (Waldviertler Sonderkulturenverein) |
| --- | --- |
| Oberwaltenreith 10 |
| 3533 Friedersbach |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| Tel. +43 28267443 |
| Fax +43 28267443550 |
| Email: naturstoffe@waldland.at |
| Contact: Rudolf Marchart’ |

—

In Section 2 the name and address of the applicant group are amended as follows:

‘Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association (Waldviertler Sonderkulturenverein)

Oberwaltenreith 10

3533 Friedersbach

ÖSTERREICH

Tel. +43 28267443

Fax +43 28267443550

Email: naturstoffe@waldland.at

Contact: Rudolf Marchart’

| — | In Section 5(e) (Method of production) the sentence:

  ‘For this reason the Verein zur Förderung von Sonderkulturen (Austrian association promoting specialised crops) has developed special poppy-harvesting equipment.’

  is replaced by the following:

  ‘For this reason the Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association (formerly the Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel, Verein zur Förderung von Sonderkulturen im Waldviertel) has developed special poppy-harvesting equipment.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

In Section 5(e) (Method of production) the sentence:

‘For this reason the Verein zur Förderung von Sonderkulturen (Austrian association promoting specialised crops) has developed special poppy-harvesting equipment.’

is replaced by the following:

‘For this reason the Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association (formerly the Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel, Verein zur Förderung von Sonderkulturen im Waldviertel) has developed special poppy-harvesting equipment.’

| — | Section 5(g) (Inspection body) is to read:






  ‘SGS Austria Controll-Co. GesmbH |
| --- | --- |
| Diefenbachgasse 35 |
| 1150 Wien |
| ÖSTERREICH |
| Tel. +43 1 5122567-0 |
| Fax +43 1 5122567-9 |
| Email: sgs.austria@sgs.com’ |

—

Section 5(g) (Inspection body) is to read:

‘SGS Austria Controll-Co. GesmbH

Diefenbachgasse 35

1150 Wien

ÖSTERREICH

Tel. +43 1 5122567-0

Fax +43 1 5122567-9

Email: sgs.austria@sgs.com’

| — | In Section 5(h) (Labelling) the sentence

  ‘May be marketed directly by farmers or by the company Waldland Betriebs- und Handels GesmbH, 3910 Edelhof.’

  is replaced by the following:

  ‘May be marketed directly by farmers or, for large industrial customers, via Waldland Naturstoffe GmbH and, for consumers, via its subsidiary Waldland Vermarktungs GmbH, both companies being based at Oberwaltenreith 10, 3533 Friedersbach’. |
| --- | --- |

—

In Section 5(h) (Labelling) the sentence

‘May be marketed directly by farmers or by the company Waldland Betriebs- und Handels GesmbH, 3910 Edelhof.’

is replaced by the following:

‘May be marketed directly by farmers or, for large industrial customers, via Waldland Naturstoffe GmbH and, for consumers, via its subsidiary Waldland Vermarktungs GmbH, both companies being based at Oberwaltenreith 10, 3533 Friedersbach’.

| — | Material part:







  — | On p. 1 Sections 1 and 2 are deleted since they merely repeat Sections 1 and 2 of the summary. |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Material part:

Material part:

—

On p. 1 Sections 1 and 2 are deleted since they merely repeat Sections 1 and 2 of the summary.

| — | On p. 6 and 8 the references to the ‘Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel’ are replaced by the words

  ‘Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association (formerly the Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel)’ |
| --- | --- |

—

On p. 6 and 8 the references to the ‘Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel’ are replaced by the words

‘Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association (formerly the Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel)’

| — | On p. 9 the first sentence of the final paragraph

  ‘Prior to cultivation the producers (farmers) and the Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel conclude cultivation and supply contracts forming the basis of quality production’.

  is replaced by the following:

  ‘Prior to cultivation the producers (farmers) and Waldland Naturstoffe GmbH, which is owned by the Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association, conclude cultivation and supply contracts forming the basis of quality production.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

On p. 9 the first sentence of the final paragraph

‘Prior to cultivation the producers (farmers) and the Association for the Promotion of Speciality Crops in the Waldviertel conclude cultivation and supply contracts forming the basis of quality production’.

is replaced by the following:

‘Prior to cultivation the producers (farmers) and Waldland Naturstoffe GmbH, which is owned by the Waldviertel Speciality Crops Association, conclude cultivation and supply contracts forming the basis of quality production.’

| — | On p. 12 Section (g) (Inspection bodies) is deleted, as it is a repetition, and the first paragraph of Section (h):

  ‘The farmers market their products directly to final consumers or resellers. Many small bakeries purchase their poppies directly from the farmer. Large customers go through the Waldland organisation which is supplied by the members of the association promoting specialised crops.’

  is replaced by the following:

  ‘May be marketed directly by farmers or, for large industrial customers, via Waldland Naturstoffe GmbH and, for consumers, via its subsidiary Waldland Vermarktungs GmbH, both companies being based at Oberwaltenreith 10, 3533 Friedersbach.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

On p. 12 Section (g) (Inspection bodies) is deleted, as it is a repetition, and the first paragraph of Section (h):

‘The farmers market their products directly to final consumers or resellers. Many small bakeries purchase their poppies directly from the farmer. Large customers go through the Waldland organisation which is supplied by the members of the association promoting specialised crops.’

is replaced by the following:

‘May be marketed directly by farmers or, for large industrial customers, via Waldland Naturstoffe GmbH and, for consumers, via its subsidiary Waldland Vermarktungs GmbH, both companies being based at Oberwaltenreith 10, 3533 Friedersbach.’

Reasons

Reasons

The name and organisational structure of the applicant group have changed since the name was protected and have been updated to avoid confusion in the summary and the related material part. The aforementioned ‘Waldland’ companies are owned by the applicant group.

The change of inspection body reflects amendments made to national legislation providing for a shift away from public inspections by the Provincial Governor to inspections by authorised private inspection bodies.

6.   Updated product specification (only for PDO and PGI)

Updated product specification (only for PDO and PGI)

The full text of the specification is available at

http://www.patentamt.at/Media/WaldviertlerGraumohn.pdf

and can also be accessed directly via the Austrian Patent Office’s website (www.patentamt.at) by navigating to the following: ‘Markenschutz/Schutzrechte/Herkunftsangabe’. The text appears under the name of the quality designation.

---

(1)  OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 17.

1

(2)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

2

---