# Official Journal C 98/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.098.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 98 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5430 March 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.098.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 98

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5430 March 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 098/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 098/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 098/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2011/C 098/03 | SESAR Joint Undertaking — Budget 2011 and staff establishment plan 2011 | 3 |
| 2011/C 098/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 18 September 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, Re-adoption — Rapporteur: France | 13 |
| 2011/C 098/05 | Final report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/37.956 — Ronds à Béton (Reinforcing bars)/Re-adoption | 14 |
| 2011/C 098/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 8 December 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption) (notified under document C(2009) 9912 final) | 16 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2011/C 098/07 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 20 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 098/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2011/C 098/03

SESAR Joint Undertaking — Budget 2011 and staff establishment plan 2011

3

2011/C 098/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 18 September 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, Re-adoption — Rapporteur: France

13

2011/C 098/05

Final report of the Hearing Officer — Case COMP/37.956 — Ronds à Béton (Reinforcing bars)/Re-adoption

14

2011/C 098/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 8 December 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption) (notified under document C(2009) 9912 final)

(notified under document C(2009) 9912 final)

16

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2011/C 098/07

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

20

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 098/08 | Notice of initiation regarding a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China | 22 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 098/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6156 — JCDecaux/Bolloré/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 24 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 098/10 | Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Withdrawal — Request from a contracting entity | 25 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2011/C 098/08

Notice of initiation regarding a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China

22

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2011/C 098/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6156 — JCDecaux/Bolloré/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

24

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2011/C 098/10

Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Withdrawal — Request from a contracting entity

25

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (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

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 98/01

On 26 January 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M5984. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M5984. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

29 March 2011

2011/C 98/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4066 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 115,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4574 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88145 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9850 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2957 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9040 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,511 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 267,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9955 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1225 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1982 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3759 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3737 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9664 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8731 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7763 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 565,34 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,6678 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,2280 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3876 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 257,24 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2599 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,220 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,9660 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,662 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,3370 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8405 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,9910 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4066

JPY

Japanese yen

115,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4574

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88145

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9850

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2957

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9040

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,511

HUF

Hungarian forint

267,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9955

RON

Romanian leu

4,1225

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1982

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3759

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3737

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9664

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8731

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7763

KRW

South Korean won

1 565,34

ZAR

South African rand

9,6678

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,2280

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3876

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 257,24

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2599

PHP

Philippine peso

61,220

RUB

Russian rouble

39,9660

THB

Thai baht

42,662

BRL

Brazilian real

2,3370

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8405

INR

Indian rupee

62,9910

---

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

---

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/3

---

SESAR JOINT UNDERTAKING

BUDGET 2011 AND STAFF ESTABLISHMENT PLAN 2011

2011/C 98/03

BUDGET 2011

STATEMENT OF REVENUE

| all figures in euro |
| --- |
| Title/Chapter | Programme estimates
  Sep. '09 | Commitment appropriations | Payment appropriations |
| Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev. Budget 2010 | Budget 2011 | Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev. Budget 2010 | Budget 2011 |
| 1. | European Union contribution |

all figures in euro

Title/Chapter

Programme estimates

Sep. '09

Commitment appropriations

Payment appropriations

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev. Budget 2010

Budget 2011

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev. Budget 2010

Budget 2011

1.

700 000 000

55 000 000

105 000 000

105 000 000

109 994 680

27 688 789

66 000 000

41 000 000

96 515 649

| 1.1. | seventh research and development programme |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

seventh research and development programme

350 000 000

55 000 000

55 000 000

55 000 000

59 994 680

13 552 000

41 000 000

22 000 000

48 825 339

| 1.2. | Trans-European Network programme |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Trans-European Network programme

350 000 000

50 000 000

50 000 000

50 000 000

14 136 789

25 000 000

19 000 000

47 690 310

| 2. | Contribution from Eurocontrol |
| --- | --- |

2.

165 000 000

18 372 359

11 450 000

11 450 000

20 300 000

9 000 000

11 450 000

11 450 000

20 300 000

| 2.1. | Contribution in cash |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Contribution in cash

165 000 000

18 372 359

11 450 000

11 450 000

20 300 000

9 000 000

11 450 000

11 450 000

20 300 000

| 3. | Contributions from other members |
| --- | --- |

3.

30 774 983

4 396 426

3 649 998

4 842 724

4 396 426

3 649 998

4 842 724

| 3.1. | Contribution in cash |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Contribution in cash

30 774 983

4 396 426

3 649 998

4 842 724

4 396 426

3 649 998

4 842 724

| 4. | Other revenue |
| --- | --- |

4.

580 893

182 973

182 973

190 000

2 085 936

182 973

182 973

190 000

| 4.1. | Revenue from interests yielded |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

Revenue from interests yielded

580 893

776 702

776 702

790 000

2 085 936

776 702

1 907 455

790 000

| 4.2. | Revenue from taxes recovered |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

Revenue from taxes recovered

| 4.3. | Programme revenues from non-members |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

Programme revenues from non-members

| 4.4. | Interest to be returned to the EU |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

Interest to be returned to the EU

(593 729)

(593 729)

(600 000)

(593 729)

(1 724 482)

(600 000)

Budget out-turn previous year

256 030 073

14 372 359

13 625 931

115 633 500

86 468 421

39 507 269

TOTAL REVENUE

895 774 983

329 983 325

121 029 399

134 655 330

148 953 335

154 408 225

82 029 399

142 751 392

161 355 642

STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE

| all figures in euro |
| --- |
| Title/Chapter | Programme estimates
  Sep. '09 | Commitment appropriations | Payment appropriations |
| Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev. Budget 2010 | Budget 2011 | Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev. Budget 2010 | Budget 2011 |
| 1. | Staff expenditure |

all figures in euro

Title/Chapter

Programme estimates

Sep. '09

Commitment appropriations

Payment appropriations

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev. Budget 2010

Budget 2011

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev. Budget 2010

Budget 2011

1.

55 000 000

3 971 212

5 543 939

5 459 269

5 905 000

3 404 568

5 543 939

5 459 269

5 905 000

| 1.1. | Staff expenditure as per staff establishment plan |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Staff expenditure as per staff establishment plan

50 000 000

2 945 225

3 171 962

2 490 928

2 630 000

3 191 315

3 171 962

2 490 928

2 630 000

| 1.2. | Contract agents, interim staff |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Contract agents, interim staff

24 830

282 353

307 353

380 000

21 640

282 353

307 353

380 000

| 1.3. | Secondments from members |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

Secondments from members

5 000 000

750 000

954 824

1 595 858

1 890 000

954 824

1 595 858

1 890 000

| 1.4. | Seconded national experts |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

Seconded national experts

11 735

150 000

150 000

150 000

11 735

150 000

150 000

150 000

| 1.5. | Mission costs |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

Mission costs

141 824

515 000

465 000

600 000

125 038

515 000

465 000

600 000

| 1.6. | Other staff expenditure |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

Other staff expenditure

97 598

469 800

450 130

255 000

54 840

469 800

450 130

255 000

| 2. | Administrative expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.

45 774 983

3 930 436

3 130 060

3 214 730

3 211 000

1 978 752

3 130 060

3 214 730

3 211 000

| 2.1. | Rental of buildings and associated costs |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Rental of buildings and associated costs

1 219 348

764 000

762 000

770 500

1 175 917

764 000

762 000

770 500

| 2.2. | Movable property and associated costs |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Movable property and associated costs

97 276

55 000

55 000

50 000

16 497

55 000

55 000

50 000

| 2.3. | PR and events |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

PR and events

347 296

300 000

300 000

300 000

372 657

300 000

300 000

300 000

| 2.4. | Postage and telecommunications |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

Postage and telecommunications

86 315

140 060

216 060

175 000

54 355

140 060

216 060

175 000

| 2.5. | Administrative board expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

Administrative board expenditure

15 849

31 000

31 000

30 000

12 950

31 000

31 000

30 000

| 2.6. | Current administrative expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

Current administrative expenditure

328 195

370 000

161 670

298 500

331 083

370 000

161 670

298 500

| 2.7. | IT expenditure and technical facilities |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

IT expenditure and technical facilities

1 836 157

1 470 000

1 514 000

1 462 000

15 293

1 470 000

1 514 000

1 462 000

| 2.8. | Administrative support services |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

Administrative support services

175 000

125 000

175 000

125 000

| 3. | Operating expenditure |
| --- | --- |

3.

795 000 000

307 709 318

112 355 400

112 355 400

139 837 335

62 556 644

73 355 400

94 570 124

152 239 642

| 3.1. | Studies/development conducted by the SJU |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Studies/development conducted by the SJU

179 500 345

63 965 498

15 830 000

15 830 000

34 000 000

8 436 056

34 476 700

20 829 643

36 998 705

| 3.2. | Studies/development conducted by EUROCONTROL |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

Studies/development conducted by EUROCONTROL

7 000 000

600 000

600 000

600 000

600 000

| 3.3. | Studies/development conducted by the members |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

Studies/development conducted by the members

615 499 655

236 743 820

95 925 400

95 925 400

105 837 335

54 120 588

38 278 700

73 140 481

115 240 937

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

895 774 983

315 610 966

121 029 399

121 029 399

148 953 335

67 939 964

82 029 399

103 244 123

161 355 642

BALANCE OF BUDGET OUTTURN

14 372 359

13 625 931

86 468 261

39 507 269

---

ANNEX I

In-kind contribution & expenditure

IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION

| all figures in EUR |
| --- |
| Title/Chapter | Programme estimates
  Sep '09 | Commitment appropriations |
| Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev Budg 2010 | Budget 2011 |
| 1. | European Union contribution |

all figures in EUR

Title/Chapter

Programme estimates

Sep '09

Commitment appropriations

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev Budg 2010

Budget 2011

1.

| 1.1. | Seventh research and dev. framework programme |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Seventh research and dev. framework programme

| 1.2. | Tran-European network programme |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Tran-European network programme

| 2. | Contribution from Eurocontrol |
| --- | --- |

2.

535 000 000

20 100 000

52 250 000

52 250 000

69 800 000

| 2.1. | Contribution in cash |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Contribution in cash

| 2.2. | Contribution in kind |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Contribution in kind

535 000 000

20 100 000

52 250 000

52 250 000

69 800 000

| 3. | Contributions from other members |
| --- | --- |

3.

615 499 655

236 743 820

95 925 400

95 925 400

105 837 335

| 3.1. | Contribution in cash |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Contribution in cash

| 3.2. | Contribution in kind |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

Contribution in kind

615 499 655

236 743 820

95 925 400

95 925 400

105 837 335

| 4. | Other revenue |
| --- | --- |

4.

53 725 363

| 4.1. | Revenue from interests yielded |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

Revenue from interests yielded

| 4.2. | Revenue from taxes recovered |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

Revenue from taxes recovered

| 4.3. | Programme revenues from non-members |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

Programme revenues from non-members

53 725 363

| 4.4. | Interest to be returned to the EU |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

Interest to be returned to the EU

Budget outturn previous year

TOTAL REVENUE

1 204 225 018

256 843 820

148 175 400

148 175 400

175 637 335

IN-KIND EXPENDITURE

| all figures in EUR |
| --- |
| Title/Chapter | Programme estimates
  Sep '09 | Commitment appropriations |
| Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev Budg 2010 | Budget 2011 |
| 1. | Staff expenditure |

all figures in EUR

Title/Chapter

Programme estimates

Sep '09

Commitment appropriations

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev Budg 2010

Budget 2011

1.

| 1.1. | Staff expenditure as per staff establish. plan |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Staff expenditure as per staff establish. plan

| 1.2. | Contract agents, interim staff |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Contract agents, interim staff

| 1.3. | Secondments from members |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

Secondments from members

| 1.4. | Seconded national experts |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

Seconded national experts

| 1.5. | Mission costs |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

Mission costs

| 1.6. | Other staff expenditure |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

Other staff expenditure

| 2. | Administrative expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 2.1. | Rental of buildings and associated costs |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Rental of buildings and associated costs

| 2.2. | Movable property and associated costs |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Movable property and associated costs

| 2.3. | PR and events |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

PR and events

| 2.4. | Postage and telecommunications |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

Postage and telecommunications

| 2.5. | Administrative board expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

Administrative board expenditure

| 2.6. | Current administrative expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

Current administrative expenditure

| 2.7. | IT expenditure and technical facilities |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

IT expenditure and technical facilities

| 2.8. | Administrative support services |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

Administrative support services

| 3. | Operating expenditure |
| --- | --- |

3.

1 204 225 018

256 843 820

148 175 400

148 175 400

175 637 335

| 3.1. | Studies/development conducted by the SJU |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Studies/development conducted by the SJU

53 725 363

| 3.2. | Studies/development conducted by Eurocontrol |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

Studies/development conducted by Eurocontrol

535 000 000

20 100 000

52 250 000

52 250 000

69 800 000

| 3.3. | Studies/development conducted by the members |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

Studies/development conducted by the members

615 499 655

236 743 820

95 925 400

95 925 400

105 837 335

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

1 204 225 018

256 843 820

148 175 400

148 175 400

175 637 335

BALANCE OF BUDGET OUTTURN

---

ANNEX II

Total

REVENUE (cash and in-kind)

| all figures in EUR |
| --- |
| Title/Chapter | Programme estimates
  Sep ’09 | Commitment appropriations |
| Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev Budg 2010 | Budget 2011 |
| 1. | European Union contribution |

all figures in EUR

Title/Chapter

Programme estimates

Sep ’09

Commitment appropriations

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev Budg 2010

Budget 2011

1.

700 000 000

55 000 000

105 000 000

105 000 000

109 994 680

| 1.1. | 7th research and dev. framework programme |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

7th research and dev. framework programme

350 000 000

55 000 000

55 000 000

55 000 000

59 994 680

| 1.2. | Tran-European network programme |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Tran-European network programme

350 000 000

50 000 000

50 000 000

50 000 000

| 2. | Contribution from Eurocontrol |
| --- | --- |

2.

700 000 000

38 472 359

63 700 000

63 700 000

90 100 000

| 2.1. | Contribution in cash |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Contribution in cash

165 000 000

18 372 359

11 450 000

11 450 000

20 300 000

| 2.2. | Contribution in kind |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Contribution in kind

535 000 000

20 100 000

52 250 000

52 250 000

69 800 000

| 3. | Contributions from other members |
| --- | --- |

3.

646 274 638

236 743 820

100 321 826

99 575 398

110 680 059

| 3.1. | Contribution in cash |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Contribution in cash

30 774 983

4 396 426

3 649 998

4 842 724

| 3.2. | Contribution in kind |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

Contribution in kind

615 499 655

236 743 820

95 925 400

95 925 400

105 837 335

| 4. | Other revenue |
| --- | --- |

4.

53 725 363

580 893

182 973

182 973

190 000

| 4.1. | Revenue from interests yielded |
| --- | --- |

4.1.

Revenue from interests yielded

580 893

776 702

776 702

790 000

| 4.2. | Revenue from taxes recovered |
| --- | --- |

4.2.

Revenue from taxes recovered

| 4.3. | Programme revenues from non-members |
| --- | --- |

4.3.

Programme revenues from non-members

53 725 363

| 4.4. | Interest to be returned to the EU |
| --- | --- |

4.4.

Interest to be returned to the EU

(593 729)

(593 729)

(600 000)

Budget outturn previous year

256 030 073

14 372 359

13 625 931

TOTAL REVENUE

2 100 000 000

586 827 145

269 204 799

282 830 730

324 590 670

EXPENDITURE (cash and in-kind)

| all figures in EUR |
| --- |
| Title/Chapter | Programme estimates
  Sep ’09 | Commitment appropriations |
| Year 2009 | Budget 2010 | Rev Budg 2010 | Budget 2011 |
| 1. | Staff expenditure |

all figures in EUR

Title/Chapter

Programme estimates

Sep ’09

Commitment appropriations

Year 2009

Budget 2010

Rev Budg 2010

Budget 2011

1.

55 000 000

3 971 212

5 543 939

5 459 269

5 905 000

| 1.1. | Staff expenditure as per staff establish. plan |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Staff expenditure as per staff establish. plan

50 000 000

2 945 225

3 171 962

2 490 928

2 630 000

| 1.2. | Contract agents, interim staff |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

Contract agents, interim staff

24 830

282 353

307 353

380 000

| 1.3. | Secondments from members |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

Secondments from members

5 000 000

750 000

954 824

1 595 858

1 890 000

| 1.4. | Seconded national experts |
| --- | --- |

1.4.

Seconded national experts

11 735

150 000

150 000

150 000

| 1.5. | Mission costs |
| --- | --- |

1.5.

Mission costs

141 824

515 000

465 000

600 000

| 1.6. | Other staff expenditure |
| --- | --- |

1.6.

Other staff expenditure

97 598

469 800

450 130

255 000

| 2. | Administrative expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.

3 930 436

3 130 060

3 214 730

3 211 000

| 2.1. | Rental of buildings and associated costs |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Rental of buildings and associated costs

1 219 348

764 000

762 000

770 500

| 2.2. | Movable property and associated costs |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Movable property and associated costs

97 276

55 000

55 000

55 000

| 2.3. | PR and events |
| --- | --- |

2.3.

PR and events

347 296

300 000

300 000

300 000

| 2.4. | Postage and telecommunications |
| --- | --- |

2.4.

Postage and telecommunications

86 315

140 060

216 060

175 000

| 2.5. | Administrative board expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.5.

Administrative board expenditure

15 849

31 000

31 000

30 000

| 2.6. | Current administrative expenditure |
| --- | --- |

2.6.

Current administrative expenditure

328 195

370 000

161 670

298 500

| 2.7. | IT expenditure and technical facilities |
| --- | --- |

2.7.

IT expenditure and technical facilities

1 836 157

1 470 000

1 514 000

1 462 000

| 2.8. | Administrative support services |
| --- | --- |

2.8.

Administrative support services

175 000

125 000

| 3. | Operating expenditure |
| --- | --- |

3.

1 999 225 017

564 553 138

260 530 800

260 530 800

315 474 670

| 3.1. | Studies/development conducted by the SJU |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Studies/development conducted by the SJU

233 225 707

63 965 498

15 830 000

15 830 000

34 000 000

| 3.2. | Studies/development conducted by Eurocontrol |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

Studies/development conducted by Eurocontrol

535 000 000

27 100 000

52 850 000

52 850 000

69 800 000

| 3.3. | Studies/development conducted by the members |
| --- | --- |

3.3.

Studies/development conducted by the members

1 230 999 310

473 487 640

191 850 800

191 850 800

211 674 670

TOTAL EXPENDITURE

2 054 225 017

572 454 786

269 204 799

269 204 799

324 590 670

BALANCE OF BUDGET OUTTURN

45 774 983

14 372 359

13 625 931

| Budget 2011 | Total |
| --- | --- |
| SJU STAFF | GRADE | Staff Plan | Temporary Agents | Contract Agents | Secondments | SNEs | |
| Executive Director | AD 14 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Director Administration and Finance | AD 12 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Chief Technology and Innovation | AD 12 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Chief ATM (ex Chief, Operational concept and validation) | AD 12 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Chief Regulatory Affairs | AD 12 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Chief Economics and Environment | AD 10 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Chief Communication | AD 11 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Advisor to the Executive Director | AD 10 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Senior Advisor for Military Affairs to the Executive Director | AD 10 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Head Legal affairs and contracts sector | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Head of budget, financial resources and accounting | AD 8 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Hd ConOps | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Hd Validation/Verification | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Hd ATM Systems (ex Hd Airborne & CNS Systems Sector) | AD 8 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Hd Airport & Centre ATM Systems Sector | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Human resources Officer | AST 7 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Legal & contract Adviser | AD 7 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Finance and accounting Officer | AD 7 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Environment Officer | AD 7 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Project Auditor | AD 7 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Advisor Validation/Verification (ex Expert Validation/Verification) | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Advisor ConOps (ex ConOps/Airspace User S&D) | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| ATM Systems Engineer (ex Avionics Systems Engineer) | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Financial Officer (ex position of IT Systems Architect now included in PSO) | AD 6 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Communication Associate | AD 5 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Economist | AD 5 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| HR Legal Officer | AD 5 | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 |
| Project Auditor | AD 5 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Principal Advisor Finance | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Internal Auditor | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Legal Officer (ex position of IT Systems Architect now included in PSO) | AD 5 | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 |
| Senior Programme Management & Quality Expert | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Programme Management & Quality Expert | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Programme Management Specialist | n/a | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 |
| Financial accountant | AST 5 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Administrative Assistant (ex Executive secretary) | AST 3 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Administrative Assistant | AST 3 | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 |
| Secretary — Programme | AST 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Secretary to the executive Director (ex Secretary — Administration & Finance Director) | AST 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | 1 |
| Total | 39 | 24 | 3 | 12 | | 39 |
| END | | | | | | 0 |
| Expert Military Air Operations | n/a | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 |
| Advisor Regulatory Affairs | n/a | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 |
| Advisor Institutional Affairs | n/a | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |

Budget 2011

Total

SJU STAFF

GRADE

Staff Plan

Temporary Agents

Contract Agents

Secondments

SNEs

Executive Director

AD 14

1

1

1

Director Administration and Finance

AD 12

1

1

1

Chief Technology and Innovation

AD 12

1

1

1

Chief ATM (ex Chief, Operational concept and validation)

AD 12

1

1

1

Chief Regulatory Affairs

AD 12

1

1

1

Chief Economics and Environment

AD 10

1

1

1

Chief Communication

AD 11

1

1

1

Advisor to the Executive Director

AD 10

1

1

1

Senior Advisor for Military Affairs to the Executive Director

AD 10

1

1

1

Head Legal affairs and contracts sector

n/a

1

1

1

Head of budget, financial resources and accounting

AD 8

1

1

1

Hd ConOps

n/a

1

1

1

Hd Validation/Verification

n/a

1

1

1

Hd ATM Systems (ex Hd Airborne & CNS Systems Sector)

AD 8

1

1

1

Hd Airport & Centre ATM Systems Sector

n/a

1

1

1

Human resources Officer

AST 7

1

1

1

Legal & contract Adviser

AD 7

1

1

1

Finance and accounting Officer

AD 7

1

1

1

Environment Officer

AD 7

1

1

1

Project Auditor

AD 7

1

1

1

Advisor Validation/Verification (ex Expert Validation/Verification)

n/a

1

1

1

Advisor ConOps (ex ConOps/Airspace User S&D)

n/a

1

1

1

ATM Systems Engineer (ex Avionics Systems Engineer)

n/a

1

1

1

Financial Officer (ex position of IT Systems Architect now included in PSO)

AD 6

1

1

1

Communication Associate

AD 5

1

1

1

Economist

AD 5

1

1

1

HR Legal Officer

AD 5

1

1

1

Project Auditor

AD 5

1

1

1

Principal Advisor Finance

n/a

1

1

1

Internal Auditor

n/a

1

1

1

Legal Officer (ex position of IT Systems Architect now included in PSO)

AD 5

1

1

1

Senior Programme Management & Quality Expert

n/a

1

1

1

Programme Management & Quality Expert

n/a

1

1

1

Programme Management Specialist

n/a

1

1

1

Financial accountant

AST 5

1

1

1

Administrative Assistant (ex Executive secretary)

AST 3

1

1

1

Administrative Assistant

AST 3

1

1

1

Secretary — Programme

AST 1

1

1

1

Secretary to the executive Director (ex Secretary — Administration & Finance Director)

AST 1

1

1

1

Total

39

24

3

12

39

END

0

Expert Military Air Operations

n/a

1

1

1

Advisor Regulatory Affairs

n/a

1

1

1

Advisor Institutional Affairs

n/a

1

1

1

Total

3

0

0

0

3

3

---

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/13

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 18 September 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, Re-adoption

Rapporteur: France

2011/C 98/04

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the applicability of Articles 7(1) and 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 as legal basis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the applicability of Articles 7(1) and 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 as legal basis.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the proceedings followed for the readoption decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the proceedings followed for the readoption decision.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the applicability of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty as substantive law despite its expiry. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the applicability of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty as substantive law despite its expiry.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the product and geographic market affected by the cartel in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the product and geographic market affected by the cartel in the draft decision.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's finding that the limitation period has not expired. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's finding that the limitation period has not expired.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to an aggravating circumstance. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to an aggravating circumstance.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the amount of the reduction of the fine based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the amount of the reduction of the fine based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

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

11.

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

---

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/14

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case COMP/37.956 — Ronds à Béton (‘Reinforcing bars’)/Re-adoption

2011/C 98/05

The case concerns an alleged cartel among eight Italian suppliers of concrete reinforcing bars and between these suppliers and one of their associations.

The draft Decision gives rise to the following observations:

The first Decision and the judgment of the Court of First Instance

The alleged infringement has already been the object of the Commission Decision of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 ECSC (hereafter: ‘first Decision’) (2).

The then responsible Hearing Officer informed on the procedure leading to the first Decision in his report of 9 December 2002 (3).

On appeal by some of the addressees, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (‘CFI’) annulled the first Decision in 2007 (4). The CFI held that, since the ECSC Treaty expired before the adoption, the Commission could not base its decision on Article 65(4) and (5) ECSC in order to establish an infringement of Article 65(1) ECSC and impose fines. The CFI annulled the decision solely on this ground while other parts of the decision were not analysed.

The re-adoption procedure

The Commission subsequently proceeded to readopt the first Decision without changing its substance. It sent a letter on 30 June 2008 (the ‘Letter’) to the addressees of the first Decision in which it informed them about its intention to readopt the decision on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the statement of objections of 26 March 2002 as well as the supplementary statement of objections of 13 August 2002.

In spite of the fact that almost all of the responding recipients complained in their reply about the Commission's intention to readopt the first Decision without issuing a new statement of objections and following all the other procedural steps foreseen by Regulations (EC) No 1/2003 and (EC) No 773/2004, the Commission did neither issue another statement of objections nor offered the parties additional opportunities to be heard orally.

The rights of the defence of the parties were already observed prior to the adoption of the first Decision. After the notification of the statement of objections and the supplementary statement of objections as well as the initial oral hearing the parties were able to submit their observations on the objections raised by the Commission, which then served as the basis of the assessment for the purposes of adoption of the first Decision. Regarding in particular the legal basis for the re-adoption of the decision, the parties already had the opportunity to comment thereon, since the supplementary statement of objections indicated that EC procedural law (the then applicable Regulation No 17) would constitute the legal basis for the adoption of the first Decision. Further, they were afforded the opportunity to make again observations on this issue following the Commission letter of 30 June 2008.

Moreover, the rights of the defence are limited to questions concerning the truth and relevance of the facts and matters alleged as well as the documents used by the Commission to support its claim that there has been an infringement of competition law. In the situation of the re-adoption of a decision, which is in all material aspects identical to the first Decision, the right to be heard is respected, insofar as the re-adopted decision does not contain any new objections as compared with the first Decision. Issues such as the passage of time, limitation periods, the overall duration of the administrative proceedings and developments in the case-law subsequent to the adoption of the annulled decision, do not alter the substance of the objections and are unrelated to any new objections, as they do not concern any conduct other than that in respect of which the undertakings concerned have already been heard (5).

The draft Decision

In my view, the draft Decision submitted to the Commission deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

No additional queries or submissions have been made to the Hearing Officer. In view thereof, and taking into account the observations set out above, I consider that the right to be heard has been respected with regard to the addressees of the draft Decision.

Brussels, 22 September 2009.

Michael ALBERS

---

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

1

(2)  COMP/37.956 — Ronds à Béton (‘Reinforcing bars’).

2

(3)  OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21.

3

(4)  Judgment of 25 October 2007 in Joined Cases T-27/03, T-46/03, T-58/03, T-79/03, T-80/03, T-97/03 and T-98/03, SP and Others v Commission (‘Judgment’).

4

SP and Others

Commission

(5)  Judgment of 15 October 2002 in Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 to C-252/99 Ρ and C-254/99 Ρ Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others (PVC II) [1999] ECR 1-8375, paragraphs 90-103.

5

Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others

---

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/16

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 8 December 2009

relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty

(Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, re-adoption)

(notified under document C(2009) 9912 final)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

2011/C 98/06

On 30 September 2009, the Commission adopted a decision (amended by the decision of 8 December 2009) relating to an infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including the penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. A non-confidential version of the full decision can be found in the authentic language of the case and in the working languages of the Commission on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | This Decision is a re-adoption of the Decision of 17 December 2002 (2) whereby the Commission first condemned a cartel in the reinforcing bars sector in Italy on the basis of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (hereinafter ‘the ECSC Treaty’). On 25 October 2007, the Court of First Instance annulled that Decision, ruling that the ECSC could not constitute the legal basis for the Decision since the Treaty had expired (3) when the Decision was adopted (4). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

This Decision is a re-adoption of the Decision of 17 December 2002 (2) whereby the Commission first condemned a cartel in the reinforcing bars sector in Italy on the basis of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (hereinafter ‘the ECSC Treaty’). On 25 October 2007, the Court of First Instance annulled that Decision, ruling that the ECSC could not constitute the legal basis for the Decision since the Treaty had expired (3) when the Decision was adopted (4).

| (2) | Although it concerns the same infringement, the new Decision is therefore based on Articles 7(1) and 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in the Treaty (5) (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Although it concerns the same infringement, the new Decision is therefore based on Articles 7(1) and 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in the Treaty (5) (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU).

| (3) | The Decision is addressed to eight Italian undertakings corresponding to eleven companies: Alfa Acciai SpA, Feralpi Holding SpA, Ferriere Nord SpA, IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA, Leali SpA, Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation), Lucchini SpA, S.P. SpA (in liquidation), Riva Fire SpA, Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA. The agreement in which they took part lasted from 6 December 1989 to 4 July 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Decision is addressed to eight Italian undertakings corresponding to eleven companies: Alfa Acciai SpA, Feralpi Holding SpA, Ferriere Nord SpA, IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA, Leali SpA, Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation), Lucchini SpA, S.P. SpA (in liquidation), Riva Fire SpA, Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA. The agreement in which they took part lasted from 6 December 1989 to 4 July 2000.

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

| (4) | On the basis of the information gathered during inspections carried out at the offices of reinforcing bar manufacturers and the answers to requests for information sent to those undertakings under Article 47 of the ECSC Treaty, on 26 March 2002 the Commission initiated proceedings under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and adopted a Statement of Objections, notified under Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty to the undertakings to which the Decision is addressed. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On the basis of the information gathered during inspections carried out at the offices of reinforcing bar manufacturers and the answers to requests for information sent to those undertakings under Article 47 of the ECSC Treaty, on 26 March 2002 the Commission initiated proceedings under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and adopted a Statement of Objections, notified under Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty to the undertakings to which the Decision is addressed.

| (5) | In the course of the investigation, Ferriere Nord SpA and Leali SpA contacted the Commission pursuant to the Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases of 18 July 1996 (6) (hereinafter the ‘Leniency Notice’). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In the course of the investigation, Ferriere Nord SpA and Leali SpA contacted the Commission pursuant to the Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases of 18 July 1996 (6) (hereinafter the ‘Leniency Notice’).

| (6) | The addressees of the Statement of Objections submitted their written comments and, with the exception of Lucchini SpA, asked to present them orally to the Hearing Officer at the hearing which took place on 13 June 2002. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The addressees of the Statement of Objections submitted their written comments and, with the exception of Lucchini SpA, asked to present them orally to the Hearing Officer at the hearing which took place on 13 June 2002.

| (7) | On 13 August 2002, the Commission sent to the same addressees an additional Statement of Objections in which it explained what its position would be regarding continuation of the proceedings following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty. The Hearing Officer held a second hearing in the presence of representatives of the Member States on 30 September 2002. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 13 August 2002, the Commission sent to the same addressees an additional Statement of Objections in which it explained what its position would be regarding continuation of the proceedings following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty. The Hearing Officer held a second hearing in the presence of representatives of the Member States on 30 September 2002.

| (8) | The procedure culminated in the adoption of the Decision of 17 December 2002, subsequently annulled by the Court of First Instance on 25 October 2007 following the appeals lodged by eight of the nine addressee undertakings. However, the Decision acquired the authority of a final decision in respect of the industry federation Federacciai (Federazione delle imprese Siderurgiche Italiane (Federation of Italian Steel Undertakings)), which had not lodged an appeal. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The procedure culminated in the adoption of the Decision of 17 December 2002, subsequently annulled by the Court of First Instance on 25 October 2007 following the appeals lodged by eight of the nine addressee undertakings. However, the Decision acquired the authority of a final decision in respect of the industry federation Federacciai (Federazione delle imprese Siderurgiche Italiane (Federation of Italian Steel Undertakings)), which had not lodged an appeal.

| (9) | The annulment of the Decision of 17 December 2002 is based only on the erroneous legal basis (Article 65(4) and (5) of the ECSC Treaty, which had expired when the Decision was adopted). Therefore the annulment of the Decision does not invalidate the administrative procedure which preceded the adoption of the Decision. By letter of 30 June 2008, the Commission therefore informed the interested parties of its intention of re-adopting the annulled Decision with the legal basis corrected. All the parties submitted comments. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The annulment of the Decision of 17 December 2002 is based only on the erroneous legal basis (Article 65(4) and (5) of the ECSC Treaty, which had expired when the Decision was adopted). Therefore the annulment of the Decision does not invalidate the administrative procedure which preceded the adoption of the Decision. By letter of 30 June 2008, the Commission therefore informed the interested parties of its intention of re-adopting the annulled Decision with the legal basis corrected. All the parties submitted comments.

| (10) | The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on the draft decision on 18 September 2009. The Commission adopted this decision on 30 September 2009 (and it was subsequently amended on 8 December 2009 in view of certain numerical references contained in eight footnotes and an annex which had not been annexed to the initial Decision). |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on the draft decision on 18 September 2009. The Commission adopted this decision on 30 September 2009 (and it was subsequently amended on 8 December 2009 in view of certain numerical references contained in eight footnotes and an annex which had not been annexed to the initial Decision).

2.2.   Summary of the infringement

| (11) | The addressees took part in a single, complex and continuous infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty which had as its object or effect the fixing of prices and which provided the basis for agreements limiting or controlling output or sales on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The addressees took part in a single, complex and continuous infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty which had as its object or effect the fixing of prices and which provided the basis for agreements limiting or controlling output or sales on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils.

| (12) | More specifically, from at least the end of 1989 the Federacciai industry federation and the other undertakings cooperating with it decided on and applied uniform prices for ‘size extras’ for reinforcing bars in Italy. From April 1992 the firms, with the support of Federacciai, extended their decisions and behaviour to cover the base price for reinforcing bars in Italy. From that date until September 1995 the agreement extended to the fixing of payment terms. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

More specifically, from at least the end of 1989 the Federacciai industry federation and the other undertakings cooperating with it decided on and applied uniform prices for ‘size extras’ for reinforcing bars in Italy. From April 1992 the firms, with the support of Federacciai, extended their decisions and behaviour to cover the base price for reinforcing bars in Italy. From that date until September 1995 the agreement extended to the fixing of payment terms.

| (13) | From at least the end of 1994 Federacciai structured its business activities more systematically, as regards both the prices and quantities of reinforcing bars produced and sold. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

From at least the end of 1994 Federacciai structured its business activities more systematically, as regards both the prices and quantities of reinforcing bars produced and sold.

| (14) | From 1995 the parties to the agreement started colluding on reducing or controlling output or sales in order to reduce the quantities of reinforcing bars on the market. Some of them set up a more detailed and systematic system of multilateral mutual control of quantities produced and sold by each firm. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

From 1995 the parties to the agreement started colluding on reducing or controlling output or sales in order to reduce the quantities of reinforcing bars on the market. Some of them set up a more detailed and systematic system of multilateral mutual control of quantities produced and sold by each firm.

| (15) | The Commission does not have sufficient evidence to show that the competition rules were infringed in the period after 4 July 2000. It should be pointed out that not all the firms necessarily took part in all the behaviour described here and that some of them took part for a shorter time. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Commission does not have sufficient evidence to show that the competition rules were infringed in the period after 4 July 2000. It should be pointed out that not all the firms necessarily took part in all the behaviour described here and that some of them took part for a shorter time.

2.3.   Attribution of liability and duration of the infringement

| (16) | The addressee Alfa Acciai SpA is an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Alfa Acciai SpA but also the behaviour of Acciaieria Megara SpA (as from 1996), Alfa Acciai Srl (before 1996) and Acciaierie di Sicilia SpA. Alfa Acciai SpA was involved in the agreement from 6 December 1989 to 4 July 2000. From 13 June 1995 to 12 February 1996, on the other hand, Alfa was not involved in the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The addressee Alfa Acciai SpA is an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Alfa Acciai SpA but also the behaviour of Acciaieria Megara SpA (as from 1996), Alfa Acciai Srl (before 1996) and Acciaierie di Sicilia SpA. Alfa Acciai SpA was involved in the agreement from 6 December 1989 to 4 July 2000. From 13 June 1995 to 12 February 1996, on the other hand, Alfa was not involved in the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales.

| (17) | The addressee Feralpi Holding SpA is the legal successor of Feralpi Siderurgica SpA, which was an addressee of the annulled 2002 Decision as an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Feralpi Siderurgica SpA but also the behaviour of Feralpi Siderurgica Srl and the former Feralpi Siderurgica SpA. Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The addressee Feralpi Holding SpA is the legal successor of Feralpi Siderurgica SpA, which was an addressee of the annulled 2002 Decision as an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Feralpi Siderurgica SpA but also the behaviour of Feralpi Siderurgica Srl and the former Feralpi Siderurgica SpA. Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000.

| (18) | The addressees Leali SpA and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation) constitute an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Leali SpA and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation) but also the behaviour of Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (until November 1998), which they replaced. After that date, Leale SpA is solely liable for the behaviour objected to. Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The addressees Leali SpA and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation) constitute an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Leali SpA and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation) but also the behaviour of Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (until November 1998), which they replaced. After that date, Leale SpA is solely liable for the behaviour objected to. Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000.

| (19) | The addressees Lucchini SpA and S.P. SpA (in liquidation) constitute an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Lucchini SpA and Siderpotenza SpA (now ‘S.P. SpA (in liquidation)’) but also the behaviour of the joint undertakings Siderpotenza SpA (until 1991) and Lucchini Siderurgica SpA (until the end of 1997). Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000. From 9 June 1998 to 30 November 1998 the undertaking did, however, suspend its involvement in the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The addressees Lucchini SpA and S.P. SpA (in liquidation) constitute an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Lucchini SpA and Siderpotenza SpA (now ‘S.P. SpA (in liquidation)’) but also the behaviour of the joint undertakings Siderpotenza SpA (until 1991) and Lucchini Siderurgica SpA (until the end of 1997). Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000. From 9 June 1998 to 30 November 1998 the undertaking did, however, suspend its involvement in the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales.

| (20) | The addressee Riva Fire SpA is the legal successor to Riva SpA, which was an addressee of the annulled 2002 Decision as an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Riva SpA but also the behaviour of Fire Finanziaria SpA, Riva Prodotti Siderurgici SpA, Acciaierie e Ferriere di Galtarossa SpA and Acciaierie del Tanaro SpA. Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000. From 1 May 1998 to 30 November 1998 the undertaking did, however, suspend its involvement in the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The addressee Riva Fire SpA is the legal successor to Riva SpA, which was an addressee of the annulled 2002 Decision as an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Riva SpA but also the behaviour of Fire Finanziaria SpA, Riva Prodotti Siderurgici SpA, Acciaierie e Ferriere di Galtarossa SpA and Acciaierie del Tanaro SpA. Its involvement in the agreement lasted from 6 December 1989 until 27 June 2000. From 1 May 1998 to 30 November 1998 the undertaking did, however, suspend its involvement in the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales.

| (21) | The addressees Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA are an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA but also the behaviour of the former Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (until 2000) and the even earlier Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (until 1990). The undertaking was involved in the agreement from 6 December 1989 to 27 June 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The addressees Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA are an undertaking to which can be attributed not only the behaviour of Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA but also the behaviour of the former Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (until 2000) and the even earlier Ferriera Valsabbia SpA (until 1990). The undertaking was involved in the agreement from 6 December 1989 to 27 June 2000.

| (22) | Lastly, the addressees Ferriere Nord SpA and IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA are the same undertakings and the same legal persons, with the same business names, which engaged in the behaviour which this Decision holds to be the infringement of EU competition law to which the Commission has objected. Ferriere Nord SpA was involved in the agreement from 1 April 1993 to 4 July 2000. However, from 13 June 1995 to 27 September 1998 Ferriere Nord was not a party to the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales. IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA was involved in the agreement from 6 December 1989 to 27 June 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Lastly, the addressees Ferriere Nord SpA and IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA are the same undertakings and the same legal persons, with the same business names, which engaged in the behaviour which this Decision holds to be the infringement of EU competition law to which the Commission has objected. Ferriere Nord SpA was involved in the agreement from 1 April 1993 to 4 July 2000. However, from 13 June 1995 to 27 September 1998 Ferriere Nord was not a party to the part of the agreement relating to the limitation or control of output or sales. IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA was involved in the agreement from 6 December 1989 to 27 June 2000.

2.4.   Fines

| (23) | The amount of the fines has been set according to the 1998 Guidelines on Fines. Since this is a re-adopted Decision, the amount of the fines imposed is, with one small exception, virtually identical to those imposed by the annulled Decision of 2002, since the infringement is the same. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The amount of the fines has been set according to the 1998 Guidelines on Fines. Since this is a re-adopted Decision, the amount of the fines imposed is, with one small exception, virtually identical to those imposed by the annulled Decision of 2002, since the infringement is the same.

2.4.1.   Basic amount

| (24) | The infringement consisted of a single, complex and continuous agreement which had as its object the fixing of prices, and on the basis of which agreements were also made limiting or controlling output or sales on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils for reinforced concrete. By its nature such behaviour constituted a serious infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. The cartel covered the whole of Italy. The Commission therefore considers that the addressees committed a very serious infringement. The fact that the restrictive practice was confined solely to the Italian market does not mean that the gravity of the infringement can be regarded as serious rather than very serious, since account must be taken of the volume of Italian production. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The infringement consisted of a single, complex and continuous agreement which had as its object the fixing of prices, and on the basis of which agreements were also made limiting or controlling output or sales on the Italian market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils for reinforced concrete. By its nature such behaviour constituted a serious infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. The cartel covered the whole of Italy. The Commission therefore considers that the addressees committed a very serious infringement. The fact that the restrictive practice was confined solely to the Italian market does not mean that the gravity of the infringement can be regarded as serious rather than very serious, since account must be taken of the volume of Italian production.

| (25) | However, without prejudice to the very serious nature of the infringement, the Commission has, in determining the basic amount of the fine, taken account of the specific characteristics of the case, involving a national market that was subject at the time to the rules of the ECSC Treaty and on which the firms in question accounted for a limited share of the relevant market during the first period of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

However, without prejudice to the very serious nature of the infringement, the Commission has, in determining the basic amount of the fine, taken account of the specific characteristics of the case, involving a national market that was subject at the time to the rules of the ECSC Treaty and on which the firms in question accounted for a limited share of the relevant market during the first period of the infringement.

2.4.1.1.   Differential treatment

| (26) | Within the category of very serious infringements, the scale of fines applicable makes it possible to treat firms differently in order to take account of the effective economic capacity of the offenders to impair competition significantly, as well as to set the fine at a level that ensures sufficient deterrence. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Within the category of very serious infringements, the scale of fines applicable makes it possible to treat firms differently in order to take account of the effective economic capacity of the offenders to impair competition significantly, as well as to set the fine at a level that ensures sufficient deterrence.

| (27) | As already indicated in the annulled Decision of 2002, the Commission considers that the market shares acquired by the addressees of this Decision in the last full calendar year of the infringement (1999) are not representative of their actual presence on the relevant market in the reference period. Between 1990 and 1999 the market shares of the firms virtually tripled. On the basis of the average market shares in the period 1990-1999, it is possible to identify three groups of firms in descending order of presence on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

As already indicated in the annulled Decision of 2002, the Commission considers that the market shares acquired by the addressees of this Decision in the last full calendar year of the infringement (1999) are not representative of their actual presence on the relevant market in the reference period. Between 1990 and 1999 the market shares of the firms virtually tripled. On the basis of the average market shares in the period 1990-1999, it is possible to identify three groups of firms in descending order of presence on the market.

| (28) | As regards Riva and Lucchini/Siderpotenza, the basic amount of the fine calculated in relation to the relative size of the relevant market must be increased in order to take account of the size and global resources of the firms. The turnover in ECSC products generated by these firms is very much higher than that of the other firms involved. It should also be pointed out how the documents in the case show that, on many occasions, the heads of these firms were directly involved in the infringements objected to. In order to ensure a level of sufficient deterrence, the basic amount of the fine should be increased for these two undertakings. In the annulled Decision, the Commission increased the basic amount of the fine by 225 % in the case of Lucchini/Siderpotenza (because its turnover in ECSC products is some three times greater than that of the largest of the other firms) and by 375 % in the case of Riva, which has a total turnover in ECSC products that is about three times higher than that of Lucchini/Siderpotenza. The Lucchini/Siderpotenza multiplier is reduced to 200 % in this Decision because the ratio of Lucchini/Siderpotenza turnover to that of the largest of the other firms has changed in 2008 (from 3:1 in 2001 to almost 2:1 in 2008). In reviewing the scale of the multipliers, the Commission also took account of inflation and the increase in the turnover of the undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

As regards Riva and Lucchini/Siderpotenza, the basic amount of the fine calculated in relation to the relative size of the relevant market must be increased in order to take account of the size and global resources of the firms. The turnover in ECSC products generated by these firms is very much higher than that of the other firms involved. It should also be pointed out how the documents in the case show that, on many occasions, the heads of these firms were directly involved in the infringements objected to. In order to ensure a level of sufficient deterrence, the basic amount of the fine should be increased for these two undertakings. In the annulled Decision, the Commission increased the basic amount of the fine by 225 % in the case of Lucchini/Siderpotenza (because its turnover in ECSC products is some three times greater than that of the largest of the other firms) and by 375 % in the case of Riva, which has a total turnover in ECSC products that is about three times higher than that of Lucchini/Siderpotenza. The Lucchini/Siderpotenza multiplier is reduced to 200 % in this Decision because the ratio of Lucchini/Siderpotenza turnover to that of the largest of the other firms has changed in 2008 (from 3:1 in 2001 to almost 2:1 in 2008). In reviewing the scale of the multipliers, the Commission also took account of inflation and the increase in the turnover of the undertakings.

2.4.1.2.   Duration

| (29) | The infringement lasted for more than ten years and six months as regards all the firms with the exception of Ferriere Nord SpA, where the infringement lasted for more than seven years. The basic amount of the fine is thus increased by 105 % for all the firms, with the exception of Ferriere Nord, where it is increased by 70 %. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The infringement lasted for more than ten years and six months as regards all the firms with the exception of Ferriere Nord SpA, where the infringement lasted for more than seven years. The basic amount of the fine is thus increased by 105 % for all the firms, with the exception of Ferriere Nord, where it is increased by 70 %.

2.4.2.   Aggravating circumstances

| (30) | In the present case, the Commission has identified only one aggravating circumstance, i.e. the fact that Ferriere Nord SpA has already been the subject of a Commission Decision of 2 August 1989 concerning its involvement in an agreement to fix prices and limit sales in the welded steel mesh sector (7). |
| --- | --- |

(30)

In the present case, the Commission has identified only one aggravating circumstance, i.e. the fact that Ferriere Nord SpA has already been the subject of a Commission Decision of 2 August 1989 concerning its involvement in an agreement to fix prices and limit sales in the welded steel mesh sector (7).

| (31) | The Commission therefore considers it necessary to increase the basic amount in respect of Ferriere Nord SpA by 50 %. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

The Commission therefore considers it necessary to increase the basic amount in respect of Ferriere Nord SpA by 50 %.

2.4.3.   Attenuating circumstances

| (32) | The Commission has not identified any attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The Commission has not identified any attenuating circumstances.

2.4.4.   Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice

| (33) | The Commission acknowledges that Ferriere Nord provided it with useful information that allowed it to gain a better understanding of the details of the restrictive practice. It considers that this satisfies the first paragraph of point D of the Notice, which states that a reduction in the amount of a fine is possible if, before a statement of objections is sent, an enterprise provides the Commission with information, documents or other evidence which materially contribute to establishing the existence of the infringement. The Commission considers that granting Ferriere Nord SpA a reduction of 20 % in the amount of the fine is therefore justified. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The Commission acknowledges that Ferriere Nord provided it with useful information that allowed it to gain a better understanding of the details of the restrictive practice. It considers that this satisfies the first paragraph of point D of the Notice, which states that a reduction in the amount of a fine is possible if, before a statement of objections is sent, an enterprise provides the Commission with information, documents or other evidence which materially contribute to establishing the existence of the infringement. The Commission considers that granting Ferriere Nord SpA a reduction of 20 % in the amount of the fine is therefore justified.

| (34) | However, the cooperation offered by Leali SpA does not meet the requirements of point D of the Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

However, the cooperation offered by Leali SpA does not meet the requirements of point D of the Leniency Notice.

3.   FINES IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

| Alfa Acciai SpA | EUR 7,175 million |
| --- | --- |
| Feralpi Holding SpA (formerly Feralpi Siderurgica SpA) | EUR 10,25 million |
| Ferriere Nord SpA | EUR 3,57 million |
| IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA | EUR 3,58 million |
| Leali SpA and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation), jointly and severally liable | EUR 6,093 million |
| Leali SpA | EUR 1,082 million |
| Lucchini SpA and S.P. SpA (in liquidation) (formerly Siderpotenza SpA), jointly and severally liable | EUR 14,35 million |
| Riva Fire SpA (formerly Riva Acciaio SpA) | EUR 26,9 million |
| Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, jointly and severally liable | EUR 10,25 million |

Alfa Acciai SpA

EUR 7,175 million

Feralpi Holding SpA (formerly Feralpi Siderurgica SpA)

EUR 10,25 million

Ferriere Nord SpA

EUR 3,57 million

IRO Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA

EUR 3,58 million

Leali SpA and Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA (in liquidation), jointly and severally liable

EUR 6,093 million

Leali SpA

EUR 1,082 million

Lucchini SpA and S.P. SpA (in liquidation) (formerly Siderpotenza SpA), jointly and severally liable

EUR 14,35 million

Riva Fire SpA (formerly Riva Acciaio SpA)

EUR 26,9 million

Valsabbia Investimenti SpA and Ferriera Valsabbia SpA, jointly and severally liable

EUR 10,25 million

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Decision 2006/894/EC (OJ L 353, 13.12.2006).

(3)  On 23 July 2002.

(4)  On 17 December 2002.

(5)  See footnote 1.

(6)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2002, p. 3.

(7)  OJ L 260, 6.9.1989, p. 1.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/20

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

2011/C 98/07

Aid No: SA.32070 (2010/XA)

Member State: Estonia

Region: Eesti

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Põllumajandustootja asendamise toetus

Legal basis:

| 1) | Maaelu ja põllumajandusturu korraldamise seaduse paragrahv 7 ja paragrahv 11 (Rural Development and Agricultural Market Regulation Act, Sections 7 and 11) |
| --- | --- |

1)

Maaelu ja põllumajandusturu korraldamise seaduse paragrahv 7 ja paragrahv 11 (Rural Development and Agricultural Market Regulation Act, Sections 7 and 11)

| 2) | Põllumajandusministri 8.9.2008. aasta määrus nr 90 „Põllumajandustootja asendamise toetuse saamiseks esitatavad nõuded, toetuse taotluse esitamise ja taotluse menetlemise kord”. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Põllumajandusministri 8.9.2008. aasta määrus nr 90 „Põllumajandustootja asendamise toetuse saamiseks esitatavad nõuded, toetuse taotluse esitamise ja taotluse menetlemise kord”.

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: A total of EEK 8 057 999/EUR 515 000 per year

Maximum aid intensity: Up to 100 %

Date of implementation:

Duration of scheme or individual aid award:

Objective of aid: Technical support (Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)

Sector(s) concerned: Livestock farming (NACE code A104)

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Põllumajandusministeerium |
| --- |
| Lai tn 39/Lai tn 41 |
| 15056 Tallinn |
| EESTI/ESTONIA |

Põllumajandusministeerium

Lai tn 39/Lai tn 41

15056 Tallinn

EESTI/ESTONIA

Website: http://www.agri.ee/siseriiklikud-toetused/

Other information: The support is in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006, including Article 15(2)(b) and (3)-(4) thereof. The aid intensity is up to 100 % and the aid does not involve direct payments to producers.

Aid No: SA.32114 (2010/XA)

Member State: Estonia

Region: Eesti

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Hukkunud põllumajandusloomade hävitamise ja kokkuveo kulude katmine

Legal basis:

| 1) | Loomatauditõrje seadus paragrahv 18(1) ja paragrahv 18(2) |
| --- | --- |

1)

Loomatauditõrje seadus paragrahv 18(1) ja paragrahv 18(2)

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: EUR 1 150 410 per year (EEK 18 000 005)

Maximum aid intensity: up to 75 % of the cost of destruction,

up to 100 % of the cost of removal.

Date of implementation:

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: Until 31 December 2013

Objective of aid: To partially compensate livestock farmers for the costs incurred in the destruction and removal of fallen stock. This will ensure that fallen stock are disposed of in line with requirements and will minimise illegal destruction.

The service provider will be selected through an international call for tenders; the procurement contract will be concluded for each year separately. State aid for the removal and destruction of fallen stock is targeted at the livestock farming sector (farmers who keep livestock). The aid is not used for the destruction of other animal by-products (e.g. slaughterhouse waste, etc.).

State aid is provided to farmers in accordance with Article 16. Eligible costs are in accordance with Article 16(1)(d) and (f).

We hereby confirm that Estonia has an ongoing programme to ensure the safe disposal of fallen stock in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.

The aid is granted in the form of subsidised services and does not involve direct payments to producers.

Sector(s) concerned: Agricultural producers (NACE code A1)

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Põllumajandusministeerium |
| --- |
| Lai tn 39/Lai tn 41 |
| 15056 Tallinn |
| EESTI/ESTONIA |

Põllumajandusministeerium

Lai tn 39/Lai tn 41

15056 Tallinn

EESTI/ESTONIA

Website: http://www.agri.ee/index.php?id=53293

Other information: This notice amends notice NN 52/08.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/22

---

Notice of initiation regarding a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China

2011/C 98/08

The Commission has decided on its own initiative to partially reopen the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain compressors originating in the People's Republic of China initiated pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Communities (1) (‘the basic Regulation’). The reopening is limited to the examination of whether certain product types fall within the scope of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of certain compressors originating in the People's Republic of China.

1.   Product

The product concerned is reciprocating compressors (excluding reciprocating compressor pumps), giving a flow not exceeding 2 cubic meters (m3) per minute, currently falling within CN codes ex 8414 40 10, ex 8414 80 22, ex 8414 80 28 and ex 8414 80 51 and originating in the People’s Republic of China.

2.   Measure concerned

The measure concerned is a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 (2) on imports of the product concerned (‘measure concerned’). The measure concerned expired on 21 March 2010 (3).

3.   Grounds for the reopening

The information at the Commission's disposal indicates that so-called mini-compressors, i.e. compressors without a tank capable of operating on a 12 V power supply, which fall under the product scope, appear to be distinct from the other compressors subject to the measure concerned. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to partially reopen the investigation as far as a clarification of the scope of the product is concerned, with the conclusion thereon possibly having retroactive effect as of the date of the imposition of the measures concerned.

4.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the initiation of a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation is justified, the Commission hereby reopens partially the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain compressors originating in the People's Republic of China initiated under Article 5 of the basic Regulation by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union
   (4).

The Commission will examine the information submitted by all interested parties with a view to determine whether mini-compressors should be excluded from the scope of the antidumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008.

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within the time limit set in paragraph 5(a) of this notice.

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in paragraph 5(b) of this notice.

5.   Time limits

(a)   For parties to make themselves known and to submit information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit any information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

(b)   Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40-day time limit.

6.   Written submissions and correspondence

All submissions made by interested parties must be made in writing in both paper and electronic format, and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers of the interested party. If an interested party cannot provide its submissions and requests in electronic format for technical reasons, it must immediately inform the Commission.

All written submissions and correspondence provided by interested parties for which confidential treatment is requested shall be labelled ‘Limited’ (5).

Interested parties providing ‘Limited’ information are required to furnish non-confidential summaries of it pursuant to Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’. These summaries should be sufficiently detailed to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. If an interested party providing confidential information does not furnish a non-confidential summary of it in the requested format and quality, such confidential information may be disregarded.

Commission address for correspondence:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Trade |
| Directorate H |
| Office: N105 04/092 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Fax +32 22956505 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: N105 04/092

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 22956505

7.   Non-cooperation

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information may be disregarded and use may be made of the facts available.

If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

8.   Processing of personal data

It is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (6).

9.   Hearing officer

It is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of Directorate-General for Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views.

For further information and contact details interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the website of Directorate-General for Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade).

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation subsequently replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51).

(2)  OJ L 81, 20.3.2008, p. 1.

(3)  OJ C 73, 23.3.2010, p. 39.

(4)  OJ C 314, 21.12.2006, p. 2.

(5)  This document is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51) and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement). It is also a document protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

(6)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/24

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.6156 — JCDecaux/Bolloré/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 98/09

| 1. | On 23 March 2011, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings JCDecaux Asie Holding, belonging to the JCDecaux Group (‘JCDecaux’, France) and Socopao, belonging to the Bolloré Group (‘Bolloré’, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking JCDecaux Bolloré Holding (‘JV’, France) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 23 March 2011, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings JCDecaux Asie Holding, belonging to the JCDecaux Group (‘JCDecaux’, France) and Socopao, belonging to the Bolloré Group (‘Bolloré’, France) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking JCDecaux Bolloré Holding (‘JV’, France) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

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






  — | JCDecaux: French group active in the field of outdoor advertising in 56 countries around the world, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

JCDecaux: French group active in the field of outdoor advertising in 56 countries around the world,

| — | Bolloré: French group active in various fields such as manufacturing of plastic film, electrical batteries and energy storage components, design, manufacture and marketing of ticketing terminals and machines and access control systems, energy distribution, freight forwarding and international logistics, communication and media and operation of port and rail concessions and plantations, |
| --- | --- |

—

Bolloré: French group active in various fields such as manufacturing of plastic film, electrical batteries and energy storage components, design, manufacture and marketing of ticketing terminals and machines and access control systems, energy distribution, freight forwarding and international logistics, communication and media and operation of port and rail concessions and plantations,

| — | JV: outdoor advertising in Cameroon and in the future possibly other African countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

JV: outdoor advertising in Cameroon and in the future possibly other African countries.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6156 — JCDecaux/Bolloré/JV, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6156 — JCDecaux/Bolloré/JV, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

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

---

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 30.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/25

---

Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Withdrawal

Request from a contracting entity

2011/C 98/10

On 18 October 2010 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1).

That request, from the Italian oil and mining industry association — Assomineraria, on behalf of the contracting entities in the sector, concerns exploration for and extraction of oil and gas in Italy. The request was published in OJ C 290, 27.10.2010, p. 20. The initial period ended on 19 January 2011. This was extended to 19 April 2011 and the extension of the period was published in OJ C 343, 17.12.2010, p. 31.

On 22 March 2011, the applicant withdrew the request, which is to be considered null and void. There is therefore no reason to decide whether Article 30(1) applies to these sectors in Italy. Directive 2004/17/EC therefore continues to apply when contracting entities award contracts intended to enable exploration for and extraction of oil and gas in Italy and when they organise competitive tendering for the pursuit of such an activity in this geographical area.

---

(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

---