# Official Journal C 85/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 85 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6018 March 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 85

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6018 March 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 85/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8396 — Bain Capital Investors/Fintyre) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 85/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8335 — AXA/Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations/Cible) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 85/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8396 — Bain Capital Investors/Fintyre) (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 85/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8335 — AXA/Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations/Cible) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 85/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2017/C 85/04 | Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on a Commission Proposal amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 and Directive 2009/101/EC — Access to beneficial ownership information and data protection implications | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 85/03

Euro exchange rates

2

European Data Protection Supervisor

2017/C 85/04

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on a Commission Proposal amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 and Directive 2009/101/EC — Access to beneficial ownership information and data protection implications

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 85/05 | Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity | 6 |
| 2017/C 85/06 | Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity | 7 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2017/C 85/05

Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity

6

2017/C 85/06

Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU — Request made by a contracting entity

7

---

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

| 18.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8396 — Bain Capital Investors/Fintyre)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 85/01)

On 13 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8396. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8396. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

| 18.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8335 — AXA/Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations/Cible)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 85/02)

On 14 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8335. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8335. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 18.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 March 2017

(2017/C 85/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0737 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4343 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86868 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4610 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0698 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1023 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2982 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5633 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,8896 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3940 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4296 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3352 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5318 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5055 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 213,19 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,7004 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4141 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4133 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 328,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7624 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,867 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 61,9515 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,418 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3342 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,5710 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,2510 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0737

JPY

Japanese yen

121,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4343

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86868

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4610

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0698

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1023

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2982

RON

Romanian leu

4,5633

TRY

Turkish lira

3,8896

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3940

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4296

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3352

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5318

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5055

KRW

South Korean won

1 213,19

ZAR

South African rand

13,7004

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4141

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4133

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 328,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7624

PHP

Philippine peso

53,867

RUB

Russian rouble

61,9515

THB

Thai baht

37,418

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3342

MXN

Mexican peso

20,5710

INR

Indian rupee

70,2510

---

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

---

European Data Protection Supervisor

| 18.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/3

---

Summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on a Commission Proposal amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 and Directive 2009/101/EC

Access to beneficial ownership information and data protection implications

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website www.edps.europa.eu)

(2017/C 85/04)

On 5 July 2016, the Commission published a set of proposed amendments to the AML Directive and to Directive 2009/101/EC that aim at tackling directly and incisively tax evasion, in addition to anti-money laundering practices, in order to establish a fairer and more effective tax system. This Opinion assesses the data protection implications of such amendments.

In general, they seem to take a stricter approach than before to the problem of effectively countering anti-money laundering and terrorism financing. In this respect, among other measures proposed, they focus on new channels and modalities used to transfer illegal funds to the legal economy (e.g. virtual currencies, money exchange platforms, etc.).

While we do not express any merit judgment on the policy purposes pursued by the law, in this specific case, we are concerned with the fact that the amendments also introduce other policy purposes — other than countering anti-money laundering and terrorism financing — that do not seem clearly identified.

Processing personal data collected for one purpose for another, completely unrelated purpose infringes the data protection principle of purpose limitation and threatens the implementation of the principle of proportionality. The amendments, in particular, raise questions as to why certain forms of invasive personal data processing, acceptable in relation to anti-money laundering and fight against terrorism, are necessary out of those contexts and on whether they are proportionate.

As far as proportionality is concerned, in fact, the amendments depart from the risk-based approach adopted by the current version of the AML Directive, on the basis that the higher risk for anti-money laundering, terrorism financing and associated predicate offences would not allow its timely detection and assessment.

They also remove existing safeguards that would have granted a certain degree of proportionality, for example, in setting the conditions for access to information on financial transactions by Financial Intelligence Units.

Last, and most importantly, the amendments significantly broaden access to beneficial ownership information by both competent authorities and the public, as a policy tool to facilitate and optimise enforcement of tax obligations. We see, in the way such solution is implemented, a lack of proportionality, with significant and unnecessary risks for the individual rights to privacy and data protection.

1.   INTRODUCTION

1.1.   Background on the anti-money laundering Directive

| 1. | In May 2015 a new EU Directive against anti-money laundering (‘AML Directive’) (1) was adopted. The stated objective of the new legislation is to improve the tools to counter money laundering, as flows of illicit money threaten to damage the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector, as well as the internal market of the Union and international development. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In May 2015 a new EU Directive against anti-money laundering (‘AML Directive’) (1) was adopted. The stated objective of the new legislation is to improve the tools to counter money laundering, as flows of illicit money threaten to damage the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector, as well as the internal market of the Union and international development.

| 2. | The protection of the soundness, integrity and stability of credit institutions and financial institutions and the confidence in the financial system are not the only policy goals pursued by the AML Directive. Indeed, in June 2003, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF (2)) revised its Recommendations to cover terrorist financing, and provided more detailed requirements in relation to customer identification and verification. It pointed to the situations where a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing might justify enhanced policy measures and also to situations where a reduced risk might justify less rigorous controls. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The protection of the soundness, integrity and stability of credit institutions and financial institutions and the confidence in the financial system are not the only policy goals pursued by the AML Directive. Indeed, in June 2003, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF (2)) revised its Recommendations to cover terrorist financing, and provided more detailed requirements in relation to customer identification and verification. It pointed to the situations where a higher risk of money laundering or terrorist financing might justify enhanced policy measures and also to situations where a reduced risk might justify less rigorous controls.

| 3. | The AML Directive, as a consequence, provides an articulated set of rules designed to prevent both anti-money laundering and terrorism financing through illicit financial flows. It enacts a risk-based application of customer due diligence to suspicious transactions. It relies on the acquisition and analysis of beneficial ownership information and on the coordinated investigative activities of FIUs (Financial Intelligence Units) established in Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The AML Directive, as a consequence, provides an articulated set of rules designed to prevent both anti-money laundering and terrorism financing through illicit financial flows. It enacts a risk-based application of customer due diligence to suspicious transactions. It relies on the acquisition and analysis of beneficial ownership information and on the coordinated investigative activities of FIUs (Financial Intelligence Units) established in Member States.

1.2.   The Proposal: addressing tax evasion and terrorism financing

| 4. | On 2 February 2016, the European Commission published a Communication laying down an Action Plan for strengthening the fight against terrorism financing, including amendments to the AML Directive to target anti-money laundering through transfer platforms and virtual currencies and re-designing the role of FIUs (3). |
| --- | --- |

4.

On 2 February 2016, the European Commission published a Communication laying down an Action Plan for strengthening the fight against terrorism financing, including amendments to the AML Directive to target anti-money laundering through transfer platforms and virtual currencies and re-designing the role of FIUs (3).

| 5. | Also, financial scandals (4) and an increased risk of tax evasion seem to have drawn the attention of the Commission to the need to re-calibrate the action of the AML Directive and aim it more directly towards tax evasion, which, under the current version of the Directive, is just seen as a source of illicit funds, but not directly targeted. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Also, financial scandals (4) and an increased risk of tax evasion seem to have drawn the attention of the Commission to the need to re-calibrate the action of the AML Directive and aim it more directly towards tax evasion, which, under the current version of the Directive, is just seen as a source of illicit funds, but not directly targeted.

| 6. | On 5 July 2016, the Commission published a set of proposed amendments (the ‘Proposal’) to the AML Directive and to Directive 2009/101/EC that, in the context of a coordinated action with the G20 and the OECD, aim at tackling directly and incisively tax evasion by both legal and natural persons with the purpose of establishing a fairer and more effective tax system (5). We note in this context that, contrary to recital 42, the EDPS was not consulted prior to the adoption of the Proposal (6). |
| --- | --- |

6.

On 5 July 2016, the Commission published a set of proposed amendments (the ‘Proposal’) to the AML Directive and to Directive 2009/101/EC that, in the context of a coordinated action with the G20 and the OECD, aim at tackling directly and incisively tax evasion by both legal and natural persons with the purpose of establishing a fairer and more effective tax system (5). We note in this context that, contrary to recital 42, the EDPS was not consulted prior to the adoption of the Proposal (6).

| 7. | The Opinion of the EDPS was later solicited by the Council of the European Union, which, on 19 December adopted a compromise text on the Proposal (‘Council Position’ (7)). The Council Position aims at amending only the AML Directive (and not Directive 2009/101/EC) and focuses mainly on anti-money laundering and terrorism financing. While the purpose of fighting tax evasion is no longer explicitly mentioned, tools that, in the Proposal, were designed to achieve that purpose (e.g. public access to beneficial ownership information and access by tax authorities to anti-money laundering information) remain in place, although modified to a certain extent. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Opinion of the EDPS was later solicited by the Council of the European Union, which, on 19 December adopted a compromise text on the Proposal (‘Council Position’ (7)). The Council Position aims at amending only the AML Directive (and not Directive 2009/101/EC) and focuses mainly on anti-money laundering and terrorism financing. While the purpose of fighting tax evasion is no longer explicitly mentioned, tools that, in the Proposal, were designed to achieve that purpose (e.g. public access to beneficial ownership information and access by tax authorities to anti-money laundering information) remain in place, although modified to a certain extent.

1.3.   Scope of this Opinion

| 8. | This Opinion analyses the impact of the Proposal on the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection. We also give account on how such impact changes, following the adoption of the Council Position. |
| --- | --- |

8.

This Opinion analyses the impact of the Proposal on the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection. We also give account on how such impact changes, following the adoption of the Council Position.

| 9. | The Opinion also assesses the necessity and proportionality of personal data processing taking place under the proposed amendments to the AML Directive in the light of the policy purposes identified by the law. When we refer to the Proposal, although it proposes amendments to two distinct directives, we treat it as a single, integrated policy tool. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Opinion also assesses the necessity and proportionality of personal data processing taking place under the proposed amendments to the AML Directive in the light of the policy purposes identified by the law. When we refer to the Proposal, although it proposes amendments to two distinct directives, we treat it as a single, integrated policy tool.

| 10. | The interaction of public policy with fundamental rights has already come to the attention of the courts. In its Digital Rights Ireland case (8), the Court of Justice recognises that the fight against international terrorism and serious crime constitutes an objective of general interest (9). Since, however, the legal tools enacted to pursue that objective interfere with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, it is necessary, according to the Court, to assess the proportionality of such measures (10). |
| --- | --- |

10.

The interaction of public policy with fundamental rights has already come to the attention of the courts. In its Digital Rights Ireland case (8), the Court of Justice recognises that the fight against international terrorism and serious crime constitutes an objective of general interest (9). Since, however, the legal tools enacted to pursue that objective interfere with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection, it is necessary, according to the Court, to assess the proportionality of such measures (10).

| 11. | The purpose of this Opinion, therefore, is not to express any merit judgment on the choice of the policy objectives the legislator decides to pursue. Our attention, instead, focuses, in the tools and modes of action that the law adopts. It is our purpose to ensure that legitimate policy goals are effectively and timely pursued, with the minimum interference with the exercise of fundamental rights and in full respect to the requirements of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

11.

The purpose of this Opinion, therefore, is not to express any merit judgment on the choice of the policy objectives the legislator decides to pursue. Our attention, instead, focuses, in the tools and modes of action that the law adopts. It is our purpose to ensure that legitimate policy goals are effectively and timely pursued, with the minimum interference with the exercise of fundamental rights and in full respect to the requirements of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

4.   CONCLUSION

| 65. | The Commission is proposing new amendments to the AML Directive, in order to put it up to speed with technical and financial innovation and new means to perform money laundering and terrorism financing. At the same time, the Proposal aims at improving the transparency of the financial markets for a number of purposes that we identify, among others, in the fight to tax evasion, protection of investors and fight against abuses of the financial system. |
| --- | --- |

65.

The Commission is proposing new amendments to the AML Directive, in order to put it up to speed with technical and financial innovation and new means to perform money laundering and terrorism financing. At the same time, the Proposal aims at improving the transparency of the financial markets for a number of purposes that we identify, among others, in the fight to tax evasion, protection of investors and fight against abuses of the financial system.

| 66. | We have reviewed the Proposal and we consider that it should have:






  — | Ensured that any processing of personal data serve a legitimate, specific and well identified purpose and be linked to it by necessity and proportionality. The data controller performing personal data processing shall be identified and accountable for the compliance with data protection rules. |
| --- | --- | --- |

66.

We have reviewed the Proposal and we consider that it should have:

—

Ensured that any processing of personal data serve a legitimate, specific and well identified purpose and be linked to it by necessity and proportionality. The data controller performing personal data processing shall be identified and accountable for the compliance with data protection rules.

| — | Ensured that any limitation on the exercise of the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection be provided for by law, respect their essence and, subject to the principle of proportionality, enacted only if necessary to achieve objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ensured that any limitation on the exercise of the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection be provided for by law, respect their essence and, subject to the principle of proportionality, enacted only if necessary to achieve objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

| — | Ensured a proper assessment of the proportionality of the policy measures proposed in relation to the purposes sought, as emergency-based measures that are acceptable to tackle the risk of terrorist attacks might result excessive when applied to prevent the risk of tax evasion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ensured a proper assessment of the proportionality of the policy measures proposed in relation to the purposes sought, as emergency-based measures that are acceptable to tackle the risk of terrorist attacks might result excessive when applied to prevent the risk of tax evasion.

| — | Maintained into place safeguards that would have granted a certain degree of proportionality (for example, in setting the conditions for access to information on financial transactions by FIUs). |
| --- | --- |

—

Maintained into place safeguards that would have granted a certain degree of proportionality (for example, in setting the conditions for access to information on financial transactions by FIUs).

| — | Designed access to beneficial ownership information in compliance with the principle of proportionality, inter alia, ensuring access only to entities who are in charge of enforcing the law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Designed access to beneficial ownership information in compliance with the principle of proportionality, inter alia, ensuring access only to entities who are in charge of enforcing the law.

Brussels, 2 February 2017.

Wojciech Rafał WIEWIÓROWSKI

European Data Protection Supervisor

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).

1

(2)  The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body established in 1989 by the Ministers of its Member jurisdictions. The objectives of the FATF are to set standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system.

2

(3)  COM/2016/050 final.

3

(4)  The Commission explicitly makes reference to the ‘Panama papers’ scandal in its Communication on further measures to enhance transparency and the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, COM(2016) 451, final.

4

Communication on further measures to enhance transparency and the fight against tax evasion and avoidance

(5)  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing and amending Directive 2009/101/EC, COM/2016/0450 final.

5

(6)  No text was submitted in draft to the EDPS before the publication on 5 July 2016.

6

(7)  See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15468-2016-INIT/en/pdf

7

(8)  ECJ judgment of 8 April 2014 in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12, Digital Rights Ireland.

8

Digital Rights Ireland

(9)  Digital Rights Ireland, paras 41-42.

9

Digital Rights Ireland

(10)  Moreover, the Court clarifies, ‘in view of the important role played by the protection of personal data in the light of the fundamental right to respect for private life and the extent and seriousness of the interference with that right caused by Directive 2006/24/EC, the EU legislature’s discretion is reduced, with the result that review of that discretion should be strict’, Digital Rights Ireland, paras 45-48.

10

in view of the important role played by the protection of personal data in the light of the fundamental right to respect for private life and the extent and seriousness of the interference with that right caused by Directive 2006/24/EC, the EU legislature’s discretion is reduced, with the result that review of that discretion should be strict

Digital Rights Ireland

---

V Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

| 18.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/6

---

Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Request made by a contracting entity

(2017/C 85/05)

On 30 January 2017 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 31 January 2017.

This request, made by Eneco BV and NV Nuon Energy, concerns retail of electricity and gas in the Netherlands.

Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive.’ The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.

The Commission is allowed a period of 105 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 6 July 2017.

According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning retail of electricity and gas in the Netherlands, before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request, shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.

---

(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.

---

| 18.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/7

---

Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Request made by a contracting entity

(2017/C 85/06)

On 30 January 2017 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 31 January 2017.

This request, made by Eneco BV, NV Nuon Energy and DONG Energy A/S, concerns production and wholesale of electricity in the Netherlands.

Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive.’ The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.

The Commission is allowed a period of 105 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 6 July 2017.

According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning production and wholesale of electricity in the Netherlands, before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request, shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.

---

(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.

---