# Official Journal C 323/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 323 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5118 December 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 323

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5118 December 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Council |
| 2008/C 323/01 | Council Resolution of 2 December 2008 on coordinating exit taxation | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Council

2008/C 323/01

Council Resolution of 2 December 2008 on coordinating exit taxation

1

| | II   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 323/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2008/C 323/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5183 — Centrex/ZMB/ENIA/JV) (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2008/C 323/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5361 — Bank of America/Merrill Lynch) (
  1
  ) | 7 |

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 323/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

3

2008/C 323/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5183 — Centrex/ZMB/ENIA/JV) (
  1
  )

1

7

2008/C 323/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5361 — Bank of America/Merrill Lynch) (
  1
  )

1

7

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 323/05 | Euro exchange rates | 8 |
| 2008/C 323/06 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 17 June 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC — Rapporteur: Spain | 9 |
| 2008/C 323/07 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC | 10 |
| 2008/C 323/08 | Summary of Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC) (notified under document number C(2008) 3435 final)
   (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 323/09 | Communication from the Commission to the competent authorities in the framework of the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 | 14 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 323/05

Euro exchange rates

8

2008/C 323/06

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 17 June 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC — Rapporteur: Spain

9

2008/C 323/07

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC

10

2008/C 323/08

Summary of Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC) (notified under document number C(2008) 3435 final)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document number C(2008) 3435 final)

1

12

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 323/09

Communication from the Commission to the competent authorities in the framework of the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91

14

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | European Economic AreaEFTA Court |
| 2008/C 323/10 | Action brought on 12 November 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-6/08) | 15 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

European Economic AreaEFTA Court

2008/C 323/10

Action brought on 12 November 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-6/08)

15

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2008/C 323/11 | Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2008/C 323/11

Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Council

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/1

---

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

of 2 December 2008

on coordinating exit taxation

(2008/C 323/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

NOTING the two communications of 19 December 2006 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on coordinating direct tax systems in the internal market and on exit taxation,

RECALLING that, because various tax jurisdictions coexist within the EU, the transfer of an economic activity which is subject to the tax system of a single tax jurisdiction is not treated in the same way as the transfer of an economic activity which is subject to the legislation of two or more tax jurisdictions,

RECOGNISING, therefore, the appropriateness of coordination aimed at avoiding, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity, the double taxation which could result from the transfer of economic activities which are subject to two or more jurisdictions,

EMPHASISING that any solution put forward to achieve these objectives must be pragmatic, based as far as possible on existing instruments, including the bilateral double taxation conventions, restrict the administrative burden on taxpayers and authorities, and safeguard the legitimate financial interests of the Member States,

EMPHASISING, furthermore, that the guiding principles are a political commitment, whose implementation is left to the decision of the Member States, and therefore affect neither the rights and obligations of the Member States nor the respective competencies of the Member States and of the Community under the Treaty,

INVITES the Member States to adopt the following guiding principles:

| A. | ‘Transfer of economic activities’ means any operation whereby a taxpayer subject to corporation tax or a natural person engaged in a business:






  1. | ceases to be subject to corporate or personal income tax in a Member State (the exit State) while at the same time becoming subject to corporate or personal income tax in another Member State (the host State); or |
| --- | --- | --- |

A.

‘Transfer of economic activities’ means any operation whereby a taxpayer subject to corporation tax or a natural person engaged in a business:

1.

ceases to be subject to corporate or personal income tax in a Member State (the exit State) while at the same time becoming subject to corporate or personal income tax in another Member State (the host State); or

| 2. | transfers a combination of assets and liabilities from a head office or a permanent establishment in the exit State to a permanent establishment or a head office in the host State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

transfers a combination of assets and liabilities from a head office or a permanent establishment in the exit State to a permanent establishment or a head office in the host State.

| B. | When, in connection with a transfer of economic activities, the exit State reserves the option to exercise its taxing rights on the reserves made (profits realised but not yet taken into account for tax purposes) and to take back, in full or in part, the provisions made (expenditure not yet incurred but already taken into account for tax purposes), the host State may provide for the creation of reserves or provisions of identical or different amounts, in accordance with the rules governing the tax base in that State, and allow deduction from taxable results for the year in which they were established. |
| --- | --- |

B.

When, in connection with a transfer of economic activities, the exit State reserves the option to exercise its taxing rights on the reserves made (profits realised but not yet taken into account for tax purposes) and to take back, in full or in part, the provisions made (expenditure not yet incurred but already taken into account for tax purposes), the host State may provide for the creation of reserves or provisions of identical or different amounts, in accordance with the rules governing the tax base in that State, and allow deduction from taxable results for the year in which they were established.

| C. | When, in connection with a transfer of economic activities, the exit State reserves the option to exercise its taxing rights on the unrealised gains corresponding to the assets held by the taxpayer, calculated as the difference between the market value of these assets on the transfer date and their book value, the host State takes the market value on the transfer date when calculating the subsequent added value in the event of disposal. |
| --- | --- |

C.

When, in connection with a transfer of economic activities, the exit State reserves the option to exercise its taxing rights on the unrealised gains corresponding to the assets held by the taxpayer, calculated as the difference between the market value of these assets on the transfer date and their book value, the host State takes the market value on the transfer date when calculating the subsequent added value in the event of disposal.

| D. | In case of disagreement between the host State and the exit State regarding the market value of the assets on the transfer date, the two States settle their dispute using the appropriate procedure. |
| --- | --- |

D.

In case of disagreement between the host State and the exit State regarding the market value of the assets on the transfer date, the two States settle their dispute using the appropriate procedure.

| E. | The host State can require the taxpayer engaged in a transfer of economic activities to provide evidence that the exit State has exercised or will exercise its rights under the conditions set out above, as well as evidence of the market value applied by the exit State. |
| --- | --- |

E.

The host State can require the taxpayer engaged in a transfer of economic activities to provide evidence that the exit State has exercised or will exercise its rights under the conditions set out above, as well as evidence of the market value applied by the exit State.

| F. | The provisions laid down at Community level in relation to Mutual Assistance provide the framework for the host State to assist the exit State, in particular for the purposes of determining the disposal date. |
| --- | --- |

F.

The provisions laid down at Community level in relation to Mutual Assistance provide the framework for the host State to assist the exit State, in particular for the purposes of determining the disposal date.

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/3

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 323/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 29.9.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | NN 3/08 (ex 776/07) |
| Member State | Hungary |
| Region | Észak-Magyarország |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | A szénipar részére nyújtott állami támogatás (2007–2010) |
| Legal basis | A 2002. március 26-i 1028/2002. kormányhatározat, a 2002. december 29-i 56/2002. rendelet, valamint a 2007. október 20-i 278. kormányrendelet |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Accessing coal reserves |
| Form of aid | Grant |
| Budget | HUF 29 903 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 2007-2010 |
| Economic sectors | Coal industry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Közlekedési, Hírközlési és Energiaügyi Minisztérium |
| Akadémia u. 3. |
| H-1054 Budapest |

Date of adoption of the decision

29.9.2008

Reference number of the aid

NN 3/08 (ex 776/07)

Member State

Hungary

Region

Észak-Magyarország

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

A szénipar részére nyújtott állami támogatás (2007–2010)

Legal basis

A 2002. március 26-i 1028/2002. kormányhatározat, a 2002. december 29-i 56/2002. rendelet, valamint a 2007. október 20-i 278. kormányrendelet

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Accessing coal reserves

Form of aid

Grant

Budget

HUF 29 903 million

Intensity

—

Duration

2007-2010

Economic sectors

Coal industry

Name and address of the granting authority

Közlekedési, Hírközlési és Energiaügyi Minisztérium

Akadémia u. 3.

H-1054 Budapest

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 20.8.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 63/08 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Riduzione dell'aliquota di accisa sui biocarburanti |
| Legal basis | Legge 27 dicembre 2006, n. 296, articolo 1, comma 372 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 73 million
  Overall budget: EUR 219 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 1.1.2008-31.12.2010 |
| Economic sectors | Energy |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Agenzia delle Dogane |
| Via Carucci, 71 |
| I-00143 Roma |

Date of adoption of the decision

20.8.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 63/08

Member State

Italy

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Riduzione dell'aliquota di accisa sui biocarburanti

Legal basis

Legge 27 dicembre 2006, n. 296, articolo 1, comma 372

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 73 million

Overall budget: EUR 219 million

Intensity

—

Duration

1.1.2008-31.12.2010

Economic sectors

Energy

Name and address of the granting authority

Agenzia delle Dogane

Via Carucci, 71

I-00143 Roma

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8.10.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 248/08 |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | North West of Ireland |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Direct International Communications Links into NW of Ireland (Proect Kelvin) |
| Legal basis | Communications Act 2003 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Regional development, Sectoral development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: —
  Overall budget: EUR 30 million |
| Intensity | 75 % |
| Duration | 1.12.2008-1.12.2018 |
| Economic sectors | Post and telecommunications |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment |
| Netherleigh Massey Avenue |
| Belfast BT4 2JP |
| United Kingdom |

Date of adoption of the decision

8.10.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 248/08

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

North West of Ireland

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Direct International Communications Links into NW of Ireland (Proect Kelvin)

Legal basis

Communications Act 2003

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Regional development, Sectoral development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: —

Overall budget: EUR 30 million

Intensity

75 %

Duration

1.12.2008-1.12.2018

Economic sectors

Post and telecommunications

Name and address of the granting authority

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Netherleigh Massey Avenue

Belfast BT4 2JP

United Kingdom

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 8.10.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 282/08 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Region | North West of Ireand |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Direct International Communications Links into NW of Ireland (Project kelvin) |
| Legal basis | INTERREG IVA Programme 2007-2013 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Regional development, Sectoral development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 30 million |
| Intensity | 75 % |
| Duration | 2008-2018 |
| Economic sectors | Post and telecommunications |
| Name and address of the granting authority | DCERN |
| 29-37 Adelaide Road |
| Dublin 2 |
| Ireland |

Date of adoption of the decision

8.10.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 282/08

Member State

Ireland

Region

North West of Ireand

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Direct International Communications Links into NW of Ireland (Project kelvin)

Legal basis

INTERREG IVA Programme 2007-2013

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Regional development, Sectoral development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 30 million

Intensity

75 %

Duration

2008-2018

Economic sectors

Post and telecommunications

Name and address of the granting authority

DCERN

29-37 Adelaide Road

Dublin 2

Ireland

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

| Date of adoption of the decision | 16.7.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 311/08 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Sachsen-Anhalt |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Richtlinie über Bürgschaften des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt für Betriebsmittelkredite mit regionaler Zielsetzung |
| Legal basis | Richtlinien über Bürgschaften des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt für Betriebsmittelkredite mit regionaler Zielsetzung
  Allgemeine Bestimmungen für Landesbürgschaften zur Wirtschaftsförderung des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, RdErl. Des MF vom 10.5.2007
  Haushaltsgesetz des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt in der jeweils gültigen Fassung, insbesondere § 5
  Landeshaushaltsordnung und dazu erlassene Verwaltungsvorschriften, insbesondere § 39 |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Guarantee |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 330 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration | 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerium der Finanzen des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt |
| Editharing 40 |
| D-39108 Magdeburg |

Date of adoption of the decision

16.7.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 311/08

Member State

Germany

Region

Sachsen-Anhalt

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Richtlinie über Bürgschaften des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt für Betriebsmittelkredite mit regionaler Zielsetzung

Legal basis

Richtlinien über Bürgschaften des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt für Betriebsmittelkredite mit regionaler Zielsetzung

Allgemeine Bestimmungen für Landesbürgschaften zur Wirtschaftsförderung des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, RdErl. Des MF vom 10.5.2007

Haushaltsgesetz des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt in der jeweils gültigen Fassung, insbesondere § 5

Landeshaushaltsordnung und dazu erlassene Verwaltungsvorschriften, insbesondere § 39

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Guarantee

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 330 million

Intensity

—

Duration

31.12.2013

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerium der Finanzen des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

Editharing 40

D-39108 Magdeburg

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5183 — Centrex/ZMB/ENIA/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 323/03)

On 15 September 2008, 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5183. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5183. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5361 — Bank of America/Merrill Lynch)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 323/04)

On 4 December 2008, 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5361. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5361. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 December 2008

(2008/C 323/05)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4059 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,35 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4502 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,91855 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0075 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5640 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5150 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,255 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 265,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7087 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0885 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,9481 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 30,197 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1779 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 2,0469 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,7004 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8960 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,4298 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0491 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 836,46 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,0379 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6103 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2066 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 500,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9635 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,940 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,7895 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,581 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3228 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,4454 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4059

JPY

Japanese yen

124,35

DKK

Danish krone

7,4502

GBP

Pound sterling

0,91855

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0075

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5640

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5150

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,255

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

265,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7087

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0885

RON

Romanian leu

3,9481

SKK

Slovak koruna

30,197

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1779

AUD

Australian dollar

2,0469

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,7004

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8960

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,4298

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0491

KRW

South Korean won

1 836,46

ZAR

South African rand

14,0379

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6103

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2066

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 500,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9635

PHP

Philippine peso

65,940

RUB

Russian rouble

38,7895

THB

Thai baht

48,581

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3228

MXN

Mexican peso

18,4454

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/9

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 17 June 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC

Rapporteur: Spain

(2008/C 323/06)

| 1. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product markets are:






  (a) | copyright administration services to authors; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product markets are:

(a)

copyright administration services to authors;

| (b) | copyright administration services to other collecting societies; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

copyright administration services to other collecting societies;

| (c) | the licensing of public performance rights for satellite, cable and internet transmissions. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the licensing of public performance rights for satellite, cable and internet transmissions.

A minority abstains.

| 2. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that in the product markets listed from (a) to (c) the relevant geographic market is currently national in scope but could potentially be broader and at least regional in scope in the absence of the restrictions introduced by the collecting societies in the reciprocal agreements.
  A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that in the product markets listed from (a) to (c) the relevant geographic market is currently national in scope but could potentially be broader and at least regional in scope in the absence of the restrictions introduced by the collecting societies in the reciprocal agreements.

A minority abstains.

| 3. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the membership clause — which reflect the language of Article 11(II) of the CISAC model before the revision of June 2004 — incorporated in the reciprocal agreements between collecting societies constitutes an anti-competitive practice as defined under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) EEA and does not fulfil all the conditions of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(3) EEA.
  A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the membership clause — which reflect the language of Article 11(II) of the CISAC model before the revision of June 2004 — incorporated in the reciprocal agreements between collecting societies constitutes an anti-competitive practice as defined under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) EEA and does not fulfil all the conditions of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(3) EEA.

A minority abstains.

| 4. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the exclusivity clauses — which reflect the language of Article I of the CISAC model contract before the revision of 1996 — incorporated in the reciprocal agreements between collecting societies constitute an anti-competitive practice as defined under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) EEA and does not fulfil all the conditions of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(3) EEA.
  A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the exclusivity clauses — which reflect the language of Article I of the CISAC model contract before the revision of 1996 — incorporated in the reciprocal agreements between collecting societies constitute an anti-competitive practice as defined under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) EEA and does not fulfil all the conditions of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(3) EEA.

A minority abstains.

| 5. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the practice of collecting societies which consists in systematically limiting in the bilateral reciprocal agreements the right to licence their repertoire to the domestic territory of the respective other collecting society:






  (a) | constitutes a concerted practice under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) EEA; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the practice of collecting societies which consists in systematically limiting in the bilateral reciprocal agreements the right to licence their repertoire to the domestic territory of the respective other collecting society:

(a)

constitutes a concerted practice under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) EEA;

| (b) | does not fulfill the conditions defined under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(3) EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

does not fulfill the conditions defined under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(3) EEA.

A minority abstains.

| 6. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the collecting societies that are still involved in the practices described under points 3 and 4 should immediately bring to an end the infringements.
  A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the collecting societies that are still involved in the practices described under points 3 and 4 should immediately bring to an end the infringements.

A minority abstains.

| 7. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the collecting societies should bring an end to the practice described in point 5 within 90 days of the date of notification of the decision.
  A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the collecting societies should bring an end to the practice described in point 5 within 90 days of the date of notification of the decision.

A minority abstains.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

8.

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

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

9.

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

---

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/10

---

Final Report (1) of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC

(2008/C 323/07)

The draft decision in this case gives rise to the following observations:

Statement of objections

Following an investigation initiated pursuant to the receipt of two complaints, the Commission addressed a Statement of Objections (SO) to 24 European collecting societies (AEPI, AKKA-LAA, AKM, ARTIJUS, BUMA, EAU, GEMA, IMRO, KODA, LATGA, PRS, OSA, SABAM, SACEM, SAZAS, SGAE, SIAE, SOZA, SPA, STEF, STIM, TEOSTO, TONO, and ZAIKS) and CISAC (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers) on 31 January 2006. The complaints came from two commercial users, the RTL Group, against the German collecting society GEMA, and the digital audio broadcaster Music Choice Europe plc, against CISAC. The two cases were combined into the present case.

The SO was received on 3 February 2006, and the parties were given two months to reply.

Extensions of the deadline to reply to the SO were granted, taking into account the need to send a corrected version of the CD-ROM containing the Commission's file. A new deadline was set at 11 April 2006 for all parties. All the addressees replied in due time except three, which did not submit any comments: the Islanders collecting society (STEF), the Portuguese collecting society (SPA) and the Lithuanian collecting society (LATGAA).

Access to file

PRS requested access to the replies to the SO by the other addressees. The Hearing Officer at the time, Serge Durande, informed PRS of the Commission's general practice not to provide access to the replies of other parties to the SO. Replies to the SO, or part of them, become accessible only if the Commission makes use of them in the final decision. PRS did not dispute this position.

Access was also subsequently granted to the non-confidential versions of written comments provided by third parties.

Complainants and other third parties

The complainants were provided with a non-confidential version of the SO on 6 March 2006 and submitted comments in writing on 7 April 2006.

Twenty-seven undertakings requested and were granted the status of interested third party in the proceedings (see below under Oral Hearing). They were informed about the nature and subject matter of the case by means of a non confidential version of the SO and were requested to submit written comments.

The Oral Hearing

An Oral Hearing took place on 14, 15 and 16 June 2006.

All addressees with the exception of EAU and those who did not reply to the SO requested an oral hearing pursuant to Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. SOZA ARTIJUIS and OSA were represented by CISAC legal representatives.

The following third parties were admitted to the Oral Hearing: EDIMA; IFPI; RTL Group; Music Choice; Footprint; IMPALA; Universal Music International; Music Users' Council of Europe; ICMP; Nextradiotv; EBU; ZDF; ARD; VPRT; SKAP; EICTA; ECCA; ROAIM; FFACE; Vodafone; ACT' and UTECA. Some third parties (BT, Deutsche Telekom, Ericsson, Infospace, BBC) did not request to attend the Oral Hearing.

Letter of facts and further access to file

During the Hearing it became clear that the investigation had continued after the SO was sent. Therefore, the Hearing Officer recommended that a Letter of Facts be sent and that a new round of access to file containing Article 18 letters, replies to these letters and additional third party comments on the SO be made available to the parties. The Letter of Facts was sent on 5 July 2006, and the parties were granted 10 working days to make supplementary submissions once the supplementary access to file had taken place.

No parties made any further submissions or comments on the Letter of Facts.

New requests for information also were sent between September-November 2006 and on 18 December 2006 the parties were given access to these requests and the replies.

Access to results of Article 27(4) market test

Commitments offered by CISAC and 18 collecting societies in March 2007 were market tested by the publication of a Notice pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on 9 June 2007. A non-confidential version of the comments made in response to the market test was sent to all parties on 30 August 2007.

The draft decision

Following the replies to the SO and the Oral Hearing, the Commission has determined that the preliminary conclusions with regard to possible infringements by CISAC should not be retained. According, CISAC is not an addressee of the present draft decision.

The Commission has also dropped from the draft decision one objection against the remaining parties that had originally been included in the SO. No fines are foreseen in the draft decision.

The draft decision submitted to the Commission only contains objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights of the parties to be heard have been respected in this case.

Brussels, 25 June 2008.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

(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

---

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/12

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 16 July 2008

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/C-2/38.698 — CISAC)

(notified under document number C(2008) 3435 final)

(Only the Spanish, Czech, Danish, German, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Italian, Latvian, Dutch, Polish, Slovak and Slovenian texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 323/08)

On 16 July 2008, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC 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 any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Competition Directorate General website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_77.html#i38_698

| (1) | The Decision, pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, is addressed to 24 EEA collecting societies which are members of CISAC (the International Association of Collecting Societies of Authors and Composers). The addressees are: Ελληνική Εταιρεία Προστασίας της Πνευματικής Ιδιοκτησίας (ΑΕPΙ — Greece), Autortiesibu un komunicesanas konsultaciju agentura/Latvijas Autoru apvieniba (AKKA/LAA — Latvia), Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger, reg.Gen.m.b.H (AKM — Austria), Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület (ARTISJUS — Hungary), Vereniging Buma (BUMA — Netherlands), Eesti Autorite Ühing (EAÜ — Estonia), Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA — Germany), the Irish Music Rights Organisation Limited — Eagras um Chearta Cheolta Teoranta (IMRO — Ireland), Komponistrettigheder i Danmark (KODA — Denmark), Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A — Lithuania), Performing Right Society Limited (PRS — United Kingdom), Ochranný svaz Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, o.s. (OSA — Czech Republic), Société Belge des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs Scrl/Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM — Belgium), Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique (SACEM — France), Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS — Slovenia), Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE — Spain), Societa Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE — Italy), Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA — Slovakia), Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores (SPA — Portugal), Samband Tónskalda og Eigenda Flutningsréttar (STEF — Iceland), Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM — Sweden), Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto teosto r.y. (TEOSTO — Finland), the Norwegian Performing Right Society (TONO — Norway), and Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS (ZAIKS — Poland) (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision, pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, is addressed to 24 EEA collecting societies which are members of CISAC (the International Association of Collecting Societies of Authors and Composers). The addressees are: Ελληνική Εταιρεία Προστασίας της Πνευματικής Ιδιοκτησίας (ΑΕPΙ — Greece), Autortiesibu un komunicesanas konsultaciju agentura/Latvijas Autoru apvieniba (AKKA/LAA — Latvia), Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger, reg.Gen.m.b.H (AKM — Austria), Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület (ARTISJUS — Hungary), Vereniging Buma (BUMA — Netherlands), Eesti Autorite Ühing (EAÜ — Estonia), Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA — Germany), the Irish Music Rights Organisation Limited — Eagras um Chearta Cheolta Teoranta (IMRO — Ireland), Komponistrettigheder i Danmark (KODA — Denmark), Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A — Lithuania), Performing Right Society Limited (PRS — United Kingdom), Ochranný svaz Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním, o.s. (OSA — Czech Republic), Société Belge des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs Scrl/Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers (SABAM — Belgium), Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique (SACEM — France), Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS — Slovenia), Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE — Spain), Societa Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE — Italy), Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA — Slovakia), Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores (SPA — Portugal), Samband Tónskalda og Eigenda Flutningsréttar (STEF — Iceland), Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM — Sweden), Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto teosto r.y. (TEOSTO — Finland), the Norwegian Performing Right Society (TONO — Norway), and Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS (ZAIKS — Poland) (2).

| (2) | The Decision identifies specific clauses contained in the reciprocal representation agreements between collecting societies which relate to membership and exclusivity as well as the concerted practice applied by the collecting societies which leads to a strict domestic territorial segmentation of licensing areas. It concludes that these agreements and practices are anti-competitive and run contrary to Article 81 of the EC Treaty. It does not however foresee any fines. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Decision identifies specific clauses contained in the reciprocal representation agreements between collecting societies which relate to membership and exclusivity as well as the concerted practice applied by the collecting societies which leads to a strict domestic territorial segmentation of licensing areas. It concludes that these agreements and practices are anti-competitive and run contrary to Article 81 of the EC Treaty. It does not however foresee any fines.

| (3) | The Decision concerns the conditions of management and licensing, by collecting societies, of authors' public performance rights of musical works. Authors (lyricists and composers) hold the copyright (inter alia the public performance rights) on the works they have created. Collecting societies, of which there is normally one single society per country, manage copyright on behalf of authors. As a consequence of the transfer of rights from its members (authors and other right holders) a collecting society has a portfolio of works. This portfolio constitutes the own repertoire of the collecting society. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Decision concerns the conditions of management and licensing, by collecting societies, of authors' public performance rights of musical works. Authors (lyricists and composers) hold the copyright (inter alia the public performance rights) on the works they have created. Collecting societies, of which there is normally one single society per country, manage copyright on behalf of authors. As a consequence of the transfer of rights from its members (authors and other right holders) a collecting society has a portfolio of works. This portfolio constitutes the own repertoire of the collecting society.

| (4) | All the collecting societies to whom the Decision is addressed operate under the umbrella of CISAC. CISAC has agreed a model contract which serves as a non-mandatory template for reciprocal representation agreements between CISAC members for the licensing of public performance rights of musical works. Each collecting society undertakes to grant its repertoire to all other collecting societies for exploitation in their respective territories. As a result of the network created by all the reciprocal representation agreements, each collecting society has the ability to offer a global portfolio of musical works to commercial users, but only for use in its own domestic (i.e. national) territory. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

All the collecting societies to whom the Decision is addressed operate under the umbrella of CISAC. CISAC has agreed a model contract which serves as a non-mandatory template for reciprocal representation agreements between CISAC members for the licensing of public performance rights of musical works. Each collecting society undertakes to grant its repertoire to all other collecting societies for exploitation in their respective territories. As a result of the network created by all the reciprocal representation agreements, each collecting society has the ability to offer a global portfolio of musical works to commercial users, but only for use in its own domestic (i.e. national) territory.

| (5) | The Decision does not challenge the existence of the reciprocal representation agreements as such, but certain of their clauses and a concerted practice found to exist amongst collecting societies. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Decision does not challenge the existence of the reciprocal representation agreements as such, but certain of their clauses and a concerted practice found to exist amongst collecting societies.

The membership clause

| (6) | Until 2004, one clause in the CISAC model contract provided that neither contracting collecting society could, without the consent of the other, accept as a member an author who is either already a member of another collecting society, or who is a national of the territory where the other collecting society operates. A number of reciprocal representation agreements concluded among collecting societies still contain such a membership clause. Such a membership clause restricts the ability of an author to become a member of the collecting society of their choice, or to be simultaneously a member of different EEA collecting societies, for the management of his or her rights in different EEA territories. This membership clause restricts competition between collecting societies on the market for the provision of services to authors. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Until 2004, one clause in the CISAC model contract provided that neither contracting collecting society could, without the consent of the other, accept as a member an author who is either already a member of another collecting society, or who is a national of the territory where the other collecting society operates. A number of reciprocal representation agreements concluded among collecting societies still contain such a membership clause. Such a membership clause restricts the ability of an author to become a member of the collecting society of their choice, or to be simultaneously a member of different EEA collecting societies, for the management of his or her rights in different EEA territories. This membership clause restricts competition between collecting societies on the market for the provision of services to authors.

The exclusivity clause

| (7) | According to the exclusivity clause in the CISAC model contract a collecting society authorises another collecting society to licence and administer its repertoire, on an exclusive basis, within the territory of the latter society. This clause was contained in the CISAC model contract until 1996 and is still present in the reciprocal representation agreements of 17 collecting societies. The clause prevents a collecting society from licensing its own repertoire in other territories and from allowing an additional collecting society to represent the same repertoire within the territory of the domestic collecting society. As a consequence, collecting societies are reciprocally guaranteed to have a monopoly in their domestic market for the granting of licences to commercial users, such as broadcasters and online content providers. This exclusivity clause therefore restricts competition between collecting societies on the market for the provision of public performance rights to commercial users. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

According to the exclusivity clause in the CISAC model contract a collecting society authorises another collecting society to licence and administer its repertoire, on an exclusive basis, within the territory of the latter society. This clause was contained in the CISAC model contract until 1996 and is still present in the reciprocal representation agreements of 17 collecting societies. The clause prevents a collecting society from licensing its own repertoire in other territories and from allowing an additional collecting society to represent the same repertoire within the territory of the domestic collecting society. As a consequence, collecting societies are reciprocally guaranteed to have a monopoly in their domestic market for the granting of licences to commercial users, such as broadcasters and online content providers. This exclusivity clause therefore restricts competition between collecting societies on the market for the provision of public performance rights to commercial users.

The concerted practice relating to territorial delineation

| (8) | The Decision also challenges the concerted practice among all collecting societies relating to strict domestic territorial delineation. All collecting societies limit, through reciprocal representation agreements, the right to licence their repertoire to the domestic territory of the other contracting collecting society. This systematic delineation of domestic territory amounts to a concerted practice because it cannot be explained by individual market behaviour or the alleged need for geographic proximity between the licensor and the commercial user. The Decision takes note of the fact that a local presence is not required to monitor the use of the licence for internet, satellite and cable broadcast. As a consequence, collecting societies have the technical capacity to issue multi-territorial licences, however the uniform and systematic territorial delineation precludes collecting societies from offering multi-repertoire and multi-territorial licences to commercial users. Furthermore, the Decision finds that the concerted practice is not objectively necessary to ensure that collecting societies grant each other reciprocal mandates. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Decision also challenges the concerted practice among all collecting societies relating to strict domestic territorial delineation. All collecting societies limit, through reciprocal representation agreements, the right to licence their repertoire to the domestic territory of the other contracting collecting society. This systematic delineation of domestic territory amounts to a concerted practice because it cannot be explained by individual market behaviour or the alleged need for geographic proximity between the licensor and the commercial user. The Decision takes note of the fact that a local presence is not required to monitor the use of the licence for internet, satellite and cable broadcast. As a consequence, collecting societies have the technical capacity to issue multi-territorial licences, however the uniform and systematic territorial delineation precludes collecting societies from offering multi-repertoire and multi-territorial licences to commercial users. Furthermore, the Decision finds that the concerted practice is not objectively necessary to ensure that collecting societies grant each other reciprocal mandates.

| (9) | The addressees shall bring an end to the membership clause and to the exclusivity clause immediately, as far as they have not already done so. They have 120 days of the date of the notification to bring an end to the concerted practice. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The addressees shall bring an end to the membership clause and to the exclusivity clause immediately, as far as they have not already done so. They have 120 days of the date of the notification to bring an end to the concerted practice.

| (10) | The Decision will make it easier for an author to select which collecting society/societies will manage his or her public performance rights. This is of interest to an author (irrespective of whether he or she is a local composer or an artist with an international audience) because efficiency, quality of service and conditions of membership differ appreciably between collecting societies. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Decision will make it easier for an author to select which collecting society/societies will manage his or her public performance rights. This is of interest to an author (irrespective of whether he or she is a local composer or an artist with an international audience) because efficiency, quality of service and conditions of membership differ appreciably between collecting societies.

| (11) | The Decision also allows collecting societies to licence their repertoire to more than one other collecting society per territory. For internet, satellite and cable exploitation, the Decision improves the opportunities for commercial users (including broadcasters and content providers) to obtain a licence which covers more than one territory. By opening up the market to more competition between collecting societies, the Decision will provide incentives to collecting societies to improve their efficiency and the quality of their services, thereby benefitting both authors and users. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Decision also allows collecting societies to licence their repertoire to more than one other collecting society per territory. For internet, satellite and cable exploitation, the Decision improves the opportunities for commercial users (including broadcasters and content providers) to obtain a licence which covers more than one territory. By opening up the market to more competition between collecting societies, the Decision will provide incentives to collecting societies to improve their efficiency and the quality of their services, thereby benefitting both authors and users.

| (12) | The Decision does not call into question the existence of the network of reciprocal representation agreements between collecting societies and does not force or oblige a collecting society to withdraw from its reciprocal representation agreements, nor does the Decision facilitate a race to the bottom in authors' royalty payments. Collecting societies remain at liberty to continue the current system of fixing royalties or to otherwise introduce other models which protect royalty payments. The Decision will however encourage competition on the level of administration fees charged to the authors, through effecting efficiency gains, which will decrease administration fees and thereby increase the revenues of authors. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The Decision does not call into question the existence of the network of reciprocal representation agreements between collecting societies and does not force or oblige a collecting society to withdraw from its reciprocal representation agreements, nor does the Decision facilitate a race to the bottom in authors' royalty payments. Collecting societies remain at liberty to continue the current system of fixing royalties or to otherwise introduce other models which protect royalty payments. The Decision will however encourage competition on the level of administration fees charged to the authors, through effecting efficiency gains, which will decrease administration fees and thereby increase the revenues of authors.

| (13) | The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 17 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 17 June 2008.

---

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

(2)  The collecting societies of Bulgaria and Romania are not parties to the procedure in so far as their respective countries were not part of the EEA/Community when the procedure started.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/14

---

Communication from the Commission to the competent authorities in the framework of the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1)

(2008/C 323/09)

| ESO (2) | Reference and title of the harmonised standard (and reference document) referred to in Article 27(5)(c) and in Article 32(2) | First publication OJ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CEN/Cenelec | EN 45011:1998 E
  General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems (ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996) | — |

ESO (2)

Reference and title of the harmonised standard (and reference document) referred to in Article 27(5)(c) and in Article 32(2)

First publication OJ

CEN/Cenelec

EN 45011:1998 E

General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems (ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996)

—

Note:

| — | any information concerning the availability of the standard can be obtained either from the European Standardisation Organisations or from the national standardisation bodies of which the list is annexed to the Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) amended by the Directive 98/48/EC (4), |
| --- | --- |

—

any information concerning the availability of the standard can be obtained either from the European Standardisation Organisations or from the national standardisation bodies of which the list is annexed to the Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) amended by the Directive 98/48/EC (4),

| — | publication of the references in the Official Journal of the European Union does not imply that the standards are available in all the Community languages, |
| --- | --- |

—

publication of the references in the Official Journal of the European Union does not imply that the standards are available in all the Community languages,

| — | the Commission ensures the updating of this list. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission ensures the updating of this list.

More information about harmonised standards on the Internet at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1.

(2)  ESO: European Standardisation Organisation:

| — | CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, tel. (32-2) 550 08 11; fax (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be), |
| --- | --- |

—

CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Brussels, tel. (32-2) 550 08 11; fax (32-2) 550 08 19 (http://www.cenorm.be),

| — | Cenelec: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, tel. (32-2) 519 68 71; fax (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org), |
| --- | --- |

—

Cenelec: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Brussels, tel. (32-2) 519 68 71; fax (32-2) 519 69 19 (http://www.cenelec.org),

| — | ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, tel. (33) 492 94 42 00; fax (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org). |
| --- | --- |

—

ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis, tel. (33) 492 94 42 00; fax (33) 493 65 47 16 (http://www.etsi.org).

(3)  OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(4)  OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

European Economic Area EFTA Court

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/15

---

Action brought on 12 November 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-6/08)

(2008/C 323/10)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 November 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

| 1. | by failing to adopt or to notify the Authority within the time prescribed, of the measures necessary to implement Articles 6-10 of the Act referred to at point 17 of Annex IV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that Act and Article 7 EEA,
  and |
| --- | --- |

1.

by failing to adopt or to notify the Authority within the time prescribed, of the measures necessary to implement Articles 6-10 of the Act referred to at point 17 of Annex IV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that Act and Article 7 EEA,

and

| 2. | the Kingdom of Norway be ordered to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

the Kingdom of Norway be ordered to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | the case concerns the failure by Norway to implement into its national law the Act referred to at point 17 of Annex IV to the EEA (Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings), within the prescribed time limit. |
| --- | --- |

—

the case concerns the failure by Norway to implement into its national law the Act referred to at point 17 of Annex IV to the EEA (Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings), within the prescribed time limit.

---

18.12.2008

| 18.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---