# Official Journal C 47/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 47 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5226 February 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 47

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5226 February 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 047/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5450 — Kühne/HGV/TUI/Hapag-Lloyd) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2009/C 047/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5424 — DOW/Rohm and Haas) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2009/C 047/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5439 — OP Trust/Deutsche Bank London/Lloyds TSB Bank/BNP Paribas/Porterbrook Leasing) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 047/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5450 — Kühne/HGV/TUI/Hapag-Lloyd) (
  1
  )

1

1

2009/C 047/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5424 — DOW/Rohm and Haas) (
  1
  )

1

1

2009/C 047/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5439 — OP Trust/Deutsche Bank London/Lloyds TSB Bank/BNP Paribas/Porterbrook Leasing) (
  1
  )

1

2

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 047/04 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |
| 2009/C 047/05 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 431st meeting of 5 September 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners — Rapporteur: Sweden | 4 |
| 2009/C 047/06 | Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/39.168 — Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners | 5 |
| 2009/C 047/07 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 14 September 2007 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners — Rapporteur: Sweden | 7 |
| 2009/C 047/08 | Summary of Commission Decision of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) (notified under document number C(2007) 4257 final) | 8 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2009/C 047/09 | Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (
  1
  ) | 13 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 047/04

Euro exchange rates

3

2009/C 047/05

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 431st meeting of 5 September 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners — Rapporteur: Sweden

4

2009/C 047/06

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/39.168 — Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners

5

2009/C 047/07

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 14 September 2007 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners — Rapporteur: Sweden

7

2009/C 047/08

Summary of Commission Decision of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) (notified under document number C(2007) 4257 final)

(notified under document number C(2007) 4257 final)

8

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2009/C 047/09

Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community — Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (
  1
  )

1

13

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 047/10 | Call for applications 2009 — Second Programme of Community action in the field of Health (2008-2013) (
  1
  ) | 14 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2009/C 047/10

Call for applications 2009 — Second Programme of Community action in the field of Health (2008-2013) (
  1
  )

1

14

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2009/C 047/11 | Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2009/C 047/11

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

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5450 — Kühne/HGV/TUI/Hapag-Lloyd)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/01)

On 6 February 2009, 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 32009M5450. 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 32009M5450. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5424 — DOW/Rohm and Haas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/02)

On 8 January 2009, 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 32009M5424. 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 32009M5424. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5439 — OP Trust/Deutsche Bank London/Lloyds TSB Bank/BNP Paribas/Porterbrook Leasing)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/03)

On 5 February 2009, 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 32009M5439. 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 32009M5439. 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

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2009

(2009/C 47/04)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2795 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,76 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4495 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88840 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3060 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4848 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7460 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,350 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 299,63 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6515 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2823 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1605 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,9685 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5947 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9210 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,4847 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9534 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 938,03 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,7223 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,7485 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3924 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 385,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6951 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,610 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,8005 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,774 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0503 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9687 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,7700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2795

JPY

Japanese yen

123,76

DKK

Danish krone

7,4495

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88840

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3060

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4848

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7460

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

28,350

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

299,63

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6515

RON

Romanian leu

4,2823

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1605

AUD

Australian dollar

1,9685

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5947

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9210

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,4847

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9534

KRW

South Korean won

1 938,03

ZAR

South African rand

12,7223

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,7485

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3924

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 385,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6951

PHP

Philippine peso

61,610

RUB

Russian rouble

45,8005

THB

Thai baht

45,774

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0503

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9687

INR

Indian rupee

63,7700

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 431st meeting of 5 September 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners

Rapporteur: Sweden

(2009/C 47/05)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and the geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and the geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have participated in agreements and/or concerted practices and/or decisions of associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have participated in agreements and/or concerted practices and/or decisions of associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have participated in single and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have participated in single and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object and effect of the agreements and/or concerted practices were to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the object and effect of the agreements and/or concerted practices were to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States of the EU.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the gravity of the infringements. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the gravity of the infringements.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringements. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the duration of the infringements.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment as regards the attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment as regards the attenuating circumstances.

| 10. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the Leniency Notices. |
| --- | --- |

10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the Leniency Notices.

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

11.

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

| 12. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

12.

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

---

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/5

---

Final Report (1) of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/39.168 — Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners

(2009/C 47/06)

Background

On 7 and 8 November 2001 the Commission carried out investigations at the premises of several Community producers of hard and soft haberdashery products, as well as at the premises of the German association of fastening technology, Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik (VBT). The evidence indicated that the undertakings had taken part in a number of agreements and/or concerted practices in relation to zip fasteners and/or ‘other fasteners’ and/or attaching machines in the EU. According to the Commission, the infringements formed part of several overall schemes the aims of which were to distort the normal movement of prices in the EU market for ‘other fasteners’ and their attaching machines and zip fasteners. The schemes aimed to restrict competition on national, EU-wide and, in the case of ‘other fasteners’ and attaching machines, worldwide markets by allocating markets and exchanging prices and fixing minimum and target prices.

Statements of Objections and Access to file

A first Statement of Objections (SO) was sent on 17 September 2004 to the following sixteen addressees: A. Raymond Sarl; Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG; [Company A]; Coats Holdings Ltd; Éclair Prym Sarl (2); Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik (‘VBT’); Prym Fashion GmbH & Co. KG (3); [Company B]; [Company C]; Scovill Fasteners Europe SA; Scovill Fasteners Inc.; William Prym GmbH & Co. KG; [Company D]; YKK Corp., Japan; YKK Holding Europe BV; and YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH.

In view of the fact that the CD-ROM providing access to the file was sent to the parties belatedly, on 4 October 2004, upon the parties' request(s) I granted extensions and/or further extensions to the deadline for their replies to a number of parties (A. Raymond Sarl, 6 December 2004; [Berning and Company A], 20 December 2004; VBT, 20 December 2004; the three Prym companies, 20 December 2004; the two Scovill companies, 13 December 2004; YKK Corp., Japan, 21 December 2004; the remaining two YKK companies, 14 December 2004).

All parties replied in due time.

New leniency applications, providing supplementary information, enabled the Commission to issue a Supplementary Statement of Objections (SSO). This document was sent on 8 March 2006 to the same addressees, except for [Company C] and [Company D] (4), as the original SO. The SSO was also addressed to Coats Holdings' German subsidiary Coats Deutschland GmbH, which had not been an addressee of the original SO.

Upon the parties' request(s), I granted the following extensions and/or further extensions to the deadline for their replies: [Berning and Company A], 15 May 2006; the three Prym companies, 15 May 2006; Scovill Fasteners Inc., 19 May 2006; and the three YKK companies, 16 May 2006.

All parties replied in due time.

A CD-ROM containing copies of the documents in the Commission's file was sent to the parties on 13 March 2006 in relation to the SSO.

Involvement of third parties

No third parties were involved in the procedure.

Oral hearing

The oral hearing took place on 11 July 2006. All the parties participated, with the exception of the association VBT and Scovill Fasteners Europe SA.

At the outset of the oral hearing a document was accepted into evidence under Article 12(3) of the Hearing Officers' mandate. YKK had requested that this document be put in evidence as it had only recently been found, and it was considered relevant as it could show a breach of Prym's co-operation under the Leniency Notice. The parties were given the opportunity to respond orally if they so wished, or subsequently in writing.

The draft Decision

The draft Decision covers the same products and infringements as both the SO and the SSO.

The addressees of the draft Decision, except for [Company A] and [Company B] (5), remain the same as those of the SSO.

The duration of the infringements committed by some of the parties was reduced in the draft Decision as compared to the Statements of Objections.

The objections regarding certain agreements have not been retained in the draft Decision. These are: (a) a bilateral agreement between Prym and Berning on the market for ‘other fasteners’ and attaching machines; (b) a bilateral agreement between Coats and YKK on the market for zip fasteners; (c) a bilateral agreement between Prym and YKK on the market for zip fasteners.

Concerning the involvement of the association VBT in the infringement, further explanations were provided by the draft Decision. However, no new evidence that had not already been established in the Statement of Objections concerning VBT's involvement is contained in the 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, 12 September 2007.

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

(2)  The correct name of the company referred to as ‘Éclair Prym Sarl’ in both Statements of Objections has been ‘Éclair Prym Group S.A.’ since 12 November 2001, as noted in the draft Decision.

2

(3)  As of 23 October 2006, the company ‘Prym Fashion GmbH & Co. KG’ has been renamed ‘Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG’.

3

(4)  [Company C] and [Company D] are not addressees of the draft Decision.

4

(5)  [Company A] and [Company B], which were addressees of the SSO, have been dropped from the draft Decision.

5

---

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/7

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 14 September 2007 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners

Rapporteur: Sweden

(2009/C 47/07)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines as regards the four single and continuous infringements in the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines as regards the four single and continuous infringements in the European Community.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount of the fines to ensure sufficient deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount of the fines to ensure sufficient deterrent effect.

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission as regards the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission as regards the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission as regards the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 2002 Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission as regards the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 2002 Commission Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the decrease of the basic amount for Coats Holdings Ltd and its German subsidiary Coats Deutschland GmbH as well as YKK Corporation Japan and its European subsidiary YKK Holding Europe B.V. due to an attenuating circumstance in relation to the tripartite infringement in the sector of zip fasteners. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the decrease of the basic amount for Coats Holdings Ltd and its German subsidiary Coats Deutschland GmbH as well as YKK Corporation Japan and its European subsidiary YKK Holding Europe B.V. due to an attenuating circumstance in relation to the tripartite infringement in the sector of zip fasteners.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for the four single and continuous infringements in the fasteners sector in the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for the four single and continuous infringements in the fasteners sector in the European Community.

| 7. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

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

---

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/8

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 19 September 2007

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty

(Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners)

(notified under document number C(2007) 4257 final)

(Only the English, French and German versions are authentic)

(2009/C 47/08)

On 19 September 2007, 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.html

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The decision was addressed to A. Raymond Sarl (hereafter ‘A. Raymond’), Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (hereafter ‘Berning’), Coats Holdings Ltd, Coats Deutschland GmbH (hereafter ‘Coats group’), Scovill Fasteners Inc., Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A. (hereafter ‘Scovill group’), William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, Éclair Prym Group S.A. (hereafter ‘Prym group’), YKK Corporation Japan, YKK Holding Europe B.V., YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (hereafter ‘YKK group’) and Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik (hereafter ‘VBT’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The decision was addressed to A. Raymond Sarl (hereafter ‘A. Raymond’), Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (hereafter ‘Berning’), Coats Holdings Ltd, Coats Deutschland GmbH (hereafter ‘Coats group’), Scovill Fasteners Inc., Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A. (hereafter ‘Scovill group’), William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, Éclair Prym Group S.A. (hereafter ‘Prym group’), YKK Corporation Japan, YKK Holding Europe B.V., YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (hereafter ‘YKK group’) and Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik (hereafter ‘VBT’).

| (2) | The products concerned by the four separate infringements were zip fasteners, other metal and plastic fasteners (hereinafter ‘other fasteners’) and attaching machines. Each of the four infringements covered the whole territory of the Community. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The products concerned by the four separate infringements were zip fasteners, other metal and plastic fasteners (hereinafter ‘other fasteners’) and attaching machines. Each of the four infringements covered the whole territory of the Community.

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

| (3) | The findings in this Decision arise out of inspections carried out by the Commission in November 2001 pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation 17 at the premises of several producers of hard and soft haberdashery products. These inspections and other investigative measures by the Commission triggered applications from Prym group, Coats group and YKK group for immunity or reduction of fines under the Commission's leniency programme. A first Statement of Objections was notified to the parties in September 2004 and a supplementary Statement of Objections was notified in March 2006. An oral hearing was held in July 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The findings in this Decision arise out of inspections carried out by the Commission in November 2001 pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation 17 at the premises of several producers of hard and soft haberdashery products. These inspections and other investigative measures by the Commission triggered applications from Prym group, Coats group and YKK group for immunity or reduction of fines under the Commission's leniency programme. A first Statement of Objections was notified to the parties in September 2004 and a supplementary Statement of Objections was notified in March 2006. An oral hearing was held in July 2006.

2.2.   Summary of the infringement

| (4) | The Commission discovered evidence that the undertakings had taken part in one or several single and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Commission discovered evidence that the undertakings had taken part in one or several single and continuous infringements of Article 81(1) of the Treaty.

2.2.1.   Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation

| (5) | This cartel involved A. Raymond, Berning, the Scovill group, the Prym group, the YKK group and the association VBT and ran from 24 May 1991 until at least 15 March 2001. During this period the above undertakings agreed among other things on coordinated price increases in annual ‘price rounds’ and exchanged confidential information on prices and the implementation of price increases with respect to ‘other fasteners’ and their attaching machines. This collusion took place in the framework of the work circles organised by the trade association VBT. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

This cartel involved A. Raymond, Berning, the Scovill group, the Prym group, the YKK group and the association VBT and ran from 24 May 1991 until at least 15 March 2001. During this period the above undertakings agreed among other things on coordinated price increases in annual ‘price rounds’ and exchanged confidential information on prices and the implementation of price increases with respect to ‘other fasteners’ and their attaching machines. This collusion took place in the framework of the work circles organised by the trade association VBT.

2.2.2.   Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym group and the YKK group

| (6) | This cartel involved the Prym group and the YKK group and ran from 13 August 1999 until at least 13 January 2003. During this period the two leading manufacturers of fastening products in Europe fixed prices on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis and allocated customers with respect to ‘other fasteners’ and their attaching machines. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

This cartel involved the Prym group and the YKK group and ran from 13 August 1999 until at least 13 January 2003. During this period the two leading manufacturers of fastening products in Europe fixed prices on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis and allocated customers with respect to ‘other fasteners’ and their attaching machines.

2.2.3.   Cartel 3: The tripartite cooperation between the YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group

| (7) | This cartel involved the YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group and ran from 28 April 1998 until at least 12 November 1999. During this period the three manufacturers of zip fasteners met on a number of occasions to exchange price information and to discuss price increases. The three undertakings also agreed on a methodology to set minimum prices for zip fasteners in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

This cartel involved the YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group and ran from 28 April 1998 until at least 12 November 1999. During this period the three manufacturers of zip fasteners met on a number of occasions to exchange price information and to discuss price increases. The three undertakings also agreed on a methodology to set minimum prices for zip fasteners in Europe.

2.2.4.   Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats group and the Prym group

| (8) | This cartel involved the Coats group and the Prym group and ran for more than 21 years, from 15 January 1977 until at least 15 July 1998. The products concerned by the cartel were zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’. During the period of infringement the two undertakings shared the market for haberdashery, namely by preventing the Coats group from entering the market for ‘other fasteners’. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

This cartel involved the Coats group and the Prym group and ran for more than 21 years, from 15 January 1977 until at least 15 July 1998. The products concerned by the cartel were zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’. During the period of infringement the two undertakings shared the market for haberdashery, namely by preventing the Coats group from entering the market for ‘other fasteners’.

2.3.   Fines

| (9) | In fixing the amount of the fines, the Commission took into account the gravity and duration of the infringements, as well as the existence of aggravating and/or attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In fixing the amount of the fines, the Commission took into account the gravity and duration of the infringements, as well as the existence of aggravating and/or attenuating circumstances.

| (10) | The association VBT was, however, considered separately given its specific role as an association of undertakings which performed different tasks and made different decisions from the parties to the agreements and considering that VBT's participation in the cartel arrangements was limited primarily to its role as secretariat for the Baseler and Wuppertaler work circles and facilitator of the price arrangement between the cartel members (which are addressees of this decision as well). The Commission, therefore, considered it appropriate to impose a symbolic fine on VBT of EUR 1 000 for its participation in the Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer infringement (Cartel 1), in accordance with point 5(d) of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (2) (hereafter ‘the Guidelines on fines’). |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The association VBT was, however, considered separately given its specific role as an association of undertakings which performed different tasks and made different decisions from the parties to the agreements and considering that VBT's participation in the cartel arrangements was limited primarily to its role as secretariat for the Baseler and Wuppertaler work circles and facilitator of the price arrangement between the cartel members (which are addressees of this decision as well). The Commission, therefore, considered it appropriate to impose a symbolic fine on VBT of EUR 1 000 for its participation in the Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer infringement (Cartel 1), in accordance with point 5(d) of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (2) (hereafter ‘the Guidelines on fines’).

2.3.1.   Gravity

| (11) | Taking into account the nature of the infringements, their likely impact on the market and their geographical scope, the Commission concluded that all four infringements should be qualified as very serious. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Taking into account the nature of the infringements, their likely impact on the market and their geographical scope, the Commission concluded that all four infringements should be qualified as very serious.

2.3.2.   Differential treatment

| (12) | Within the category of very serious infringements, the scale of likely fines makes it possible to apply differential treatment to undertakings in order to take account of differences in their effective economic capacity to cause significant damage to competition. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Within the category of very serious infringements, the scale of likely fines makes it possible to apply differential treatment to undertakings in order to take account of differences in their effective economic capacity to cause significant damage to competition.

2.3.2.1.   Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation

| (13) | The undertakings were divided into two different categories according to their relative importance in the market. The YKK group and the Prym group were placed in a first category and the Scovill group, A. Raymond and Berning in a second category. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The undertakings were divided into two different categories according to their relative importance in the market. The YKK group and the Prym group were placed in a first category and the Scovill group, A. Raymond and Berning in a second category.

2.3.2.2.   Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym group and the YKK group

| (14) | In view of their relative importance in the market, both the YKK group and the Prym group were placed in the same category. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

In view of their relative importance in the market, both the YKK group and the Prym group were placed in the same category.

| (15) | In setting the starting amount for the two undertakings, the level of the starting amount imposed on the same undertakings in relation to Cartel 1 was taken into consideration. The bilateral infringement (Cartel 2) ran partly in parallel with the multilateral infringement (Cartel 1) on the same product markets and constituted an arrangement by which the two leading manufacturers reinforced their cooperation to achieve incremental effects on the relevant markets. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In setting the starting amount for the two undertakings, the level of the starting amount imposed on the same undertakings in relation to Cartel 1 was taken into consideration. The bilateral infringement (Cartel 2) ran partly in parallel with the multilateral infringement (Cartel 1) on the same product markets and constituted an arrangement by which the two leading manufacturers reinforced their cooperation to achieve incremental effects on the relevant markets.

2.3.2.3.   Cartel 3: The tripartite cooperation between the YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group

| (16) | The undertakings were divided into three different categories according to their relative importance in the market. The YKK group was placed in a first category, the Coats group in a second category and the Prym group in a third category. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The undertakings were divided into three different categories according to their relative importance in the market. The YKK group was placed in a first category, the Coats group in a second category and the Prym group in a third category.

2.3.2.4.   Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats group and the Prym group

| (17) | In view of the nature of this infringement it was not appropriate to apply any differential treatment to the two undertakings concerned. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

In view of the nature of this infringement it was not appropriate to apply any differential treatment to the two undertakings concerned.

2.3.3.   Sufficient deterrence

| (18) | In order to set the amount of the fine at a level which ensures a sufficiently deterrent effect, the Commission considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fines imposed. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

In order to set the amount of the fine at a level which ensures a sufficiently deterrent effect, the Commission considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fines imposed.

| (19) | With its worldwide turnover the YKK group is a much larger player than the other addressees. Accordingly, the Commission considered it appropriate to multiply the fines for the YKK group. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

With its worldwide turnover the YKK group is a much larger player than the other addressees. Accordingly, the Commission considered it appropriate to multiply the fines for the YKK group.

2.3.4.   Increase for duration

| (20) | Individual multiplying factors were also applied according to the duration of the infringement by each legal entity. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Individual multiplying factors were also applied according to the duration of the infringement by each legal entity.

2.3.5.   Attenuating circumstances

| (21) | In line with point 28 of the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (3) (hereafter ‘2002 Leniency Notice’), the applications for immunity and/or leniency concerning Cartels 1 and 2 were assessed under that notice, whereas the applications concerning Cartels 3 and 4 were assessed under the Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (4) (hereafter ‘1996 Leniency Notice’). |
| --- | --- |

(21)

In line with point 28 of the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (3) (hereafter ‘2002 Leniency Notice’), the applications for immunity and/or leniency concerning Cartels 1 and 2 were assessed under that notice, whereas the applications concerning Cartels 3 and 4 were assessed under the Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (4) (hereafter ‘1996 Leniency Notice’).

| (22) | Unlike point 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, the 1996 Leniency Notice does not provide for any specific reward to a leniency applicant that discloses facts previously unknown to the Commission and affecting the gravity or duration of the cartel. It is therefore appropriate to consider any such cooperation under the attenuating factors. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Unlike point 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, the 1996 Leniency Notice does not provide for any specific reward to a leniency applicant that discloses facts previously unknown to the Commission and affecting the gravity or duration of the cartel. It is therefore appropriate to consider any such cooperation under the attenuating factors.

| (23) | As the Coats group and the YKK group provided the Commission with facts previously unknown to the Commission, which permitted the Commission to establish the entire duration of Cartel 3 (tripartite zip infringement), the two undertakings qualified for an attenuating factor justifying a reduction of the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the two undertakings for this infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

As the Coats group and the YKK group provided the Commission with facts previously unknown to the Commission, which permitted the Commission to establish the entire duration of Cartel 3 (tripartite zip infringement), the two undertakings qualified for an attenuating factor justifying a reduction of the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on the two undertakings for this infringement.

2.3.6.   Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice: reduction of fines

| (24) | With respect to Cartels 3 and 4 the addressees of the Decision cooperated with the Commission for the purpose of receiving the favourable treatment set out in the 1996 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

With respect to Cartels 3 and 4 the addressees of the Decision cooperated with the Commission for the purpose of receiving the favourable treatment set out in the 1996 Leniency Notice.

2.3.6.1.   Cartel 3: The tripartite cooperation between the YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group

| (25) | In accordance with Section D of the 1996 Leniency Notice and in view of the Coats group's and the Prym group's level of cooperation, both undertakings were granted a 35 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed for this infringement if they had not cooperated with the Commission. The YKK group was, however, not granted any reduction of the fine under the 1996 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

In accordance with Section D of the 1996 Leniency Notice and in view of the Coats group's and the Prym group's level of cooperation, both undertakings were granted a 35 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed for this infringement if they had not cooperated with the Commission. The YKK group was, however, not granted any reduction of the fine under the 1996 Leniency Notice.

2.3.6.2.   Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats group and the Prym group

| (26) | In accordance with section C of the 1996 Leniency Notice and in view of the Prym group's extensive and substantial cooperation, the undertaking was granted a reduction of 75 % of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed for this infringement if it had not cooperated with the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

In accordance with section C of the 1996 Leniency Notice and in view of the Prym group's extensive and substantial cooperation, the undertaking was granted a reduction of 75 % of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed for this infringement if it had not cooperated with the Commission.

2.3.7.   Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice: reduction of fines

| (27) | With respect to Cartels 1 and 2 the addressees of the Decision cooperated with the Commission for the purpose of receiving the favourable treatment set out in the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

With respect to Cartels 1 and 2 the addressees of the Decision cooperated with the Commission for the purpose of receiving the favourable treatment set out in the 2002 Leniency Notice.

2.3.7.1.   Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation

Point 23(b), first indent (reduction of 30-50 %)

| (28) | The evidence submitted by the Prym group represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-competitive practices. The Prym group was the first undertaking to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was granted a 30 % reduction of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The evidence submitted by the Prym group represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-competitive practices. The Prym group was the first undertaking to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was granted a 30 % reduction of the fine.

Point 23(b), second indent (reduction of 20-30 %)

| (29) | The evidence submitted by the YKK group represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-competitive practices. The YKK group was the second undertaking to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was granted a 20 % reduction of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The evidence submitted by the YKK group represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-competitive practices. The YKK group was the second undertaking to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was granted a 20 % reduction of the fine.

2.3.7.2.   Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym group and the YKK group

Point 8(b) — Immunity

| (30) | The Prym group's submission enabled the Commission to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Hence, the Prym group qualified for full immunity from the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The Prym group's submission enabled the Commission to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Hence, the Prym group qualified for full immunity from the fine.

Point 23(b), first indent (reduction of 30-50 %)

| (31) | The evidence submitted by the YKK group represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-competitive practices. The YKK group was the first undertaking to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was granted a 40 % reduction of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

The evidence submitted by the YKK group represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-competitive practices. The YKK group was the first undertaking to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was granted a 40 % reduction of the fine.

3.   DECISION

Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation

| (32) | The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by agreeing, for the periods indicated, on coordinated price increases and by exchanging confidential information on prices and the implementation of price increases:






  (a) | A. Raymond Sarl, from 24 May 1991 to 1 December 1999; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(32)

The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by agreeing, for the periods indicated, on coordinated price increases and by exchanging confidential information on prices and the implementation of price increases:

(a)

A. Raymond Sarl, from 24 May 1991 to 1 December 1999;

| (b) | Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG, from 24 May 1991 to 19 August 2000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG, from 24 May 1991 to 19 August 2000;

| (c) | Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A., from 24 May 1991 to 15 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A., from 24 May 1991 to 15 March 2001;

| (d) | Scovill Fasteners Inc., from 31 December 1996 to 15 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Scovill Fasteners Inc., from 31 December 1996 to 15 March 2001;

| (e) | William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 24 May 1991 to 15 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 24 May 1991 to 15 March 2001;

| (f) | Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 1 August 1994 to 15 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 1 August 1994 to 15 March 2001;

| (g) | YKK Corporation Japan, from 1 March 1997 to 15 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

YKK Corporation Japan, from 1 March 1997 to 15 March 2001;

| (h) | YKK Holding Europe B.V., from 1 March 1997 to 15 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

YKK Holding Europe B.V., from 1 March 1997 to 15 March 2001;

| (i) | YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, from 24 May 1991 to 15 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, from 24 May 1991 to 15 March 2001;

| (j) | Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik, from 24 May 1991 to 19 August 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik, from 24 May 1991 to 19 August 2000.

Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym group and the YKK group

| (33) | The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by agreeing, for the periods indicated, to fix prices, notably minimum, average and target prices, to monitor price increases through the regular exchanges of price lists and frequent bilateral contacts, and to allocate customers by not undercutting each other's offers to clients:






  (a) | William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(33)

The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by agreeing, for the periods indicated, to fix prices, notably minimum, average and target prices, to monitor price increases through the regular exchanges of price lists and frequent bilateral contacts, and to allocate customers by not undercutting each other's offers to clients:

(a)

William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003;

| (b) | Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003;

| (c) | YKK Corporation Japan, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

YKK Corporation Japan, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003;

| (d) | YKK Holding Europe B.V., from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

YKK Holding Europe B.V., from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003;

| (e) | YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, from 13 August 1999 to 13 January 2003.

Cartel 3: The tripartite cooperation between the YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group

| (34) | The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty, for the periods indicated, by exchanging price information, by discussing prices and price increases between themselves, and by agreeing on a methodology to fix minimum prices for standard products:






  (a) | YKK Corporation Japan, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(34)

The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty, for the periods indicated, by exchanging price information, by discussing prices and price increases between themselves, and by agreeing on a methodology to fix minimum prices for standard products:

(a)

YKK Corporation Japan, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999;

| (b) | YKK Holding Europe B.V., from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

YKK Holding Europe B.V., from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999;

| (c) | Coats Holdings Ltd., from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Coats Holdings Ltd., from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999;

| (d) | Coats Deutschland GmbH, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Coats Deutschland GmbH, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999;

| (e) | William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999;

| (f) | Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 28 April 1998 to 12 November 1999;

| (g) | Éclair Prym Group S.A., from 13 January 1999 to 12 November 1999. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Éclair Prym Group S.A., from 13 January 1999 to 12 November 1999.

Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats group and the Prym group

| (35) | The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty, for the periods indicated, by agreeing to share the haberdashery market by preventing Coats Group from entering the market for ‘other fasteners’:






  (a) | William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 15 January 1977 to 15 July 1998; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(35)

The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty, for the periods indicated, by agreeing to share the haberdashery market by preventing Coats Group from entering the market for ‘other fasteners’:

(a)

William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 15 January 1977 to 15 July 1998;

| (b) | Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 1 August 1994 to 15 July 1998; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 1 August 1994 to 15 July 1998;

| (c) | Coats Holdings Ltd., from 15 January 1977 to 15 July 1998. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Coats Holdings Ltd., from 15 January 1977 to 15 July 1998.

| (36) | For the infringements referred to above, the following fines were imposed:
  Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation






  (a) | A. Raymond Sarl: EUR 8 325 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(36)

For the infringements referred to above, the following fines were imposed:

Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation

(a)

A. Raymond Sarl: EUR 8 325 000;

| (b) | Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG: EUR 1 123 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG: EUR 1 123 000;

| (c) | Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A. and Scovill Fasteners Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 6 002 000; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A. and Scovill Fasteners Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 6 002 000;

| (d) | William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 24 913 000; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 24 913 000;

| (e) | YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH: EUR 68 250 000, of which YKK Corporation Japan and YKK Holding Europe B.V. are jointly and severally liable for EUR 49 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH: EUR 68 250 000, of which YKK Corporation Japan and YKK Holding Europe B.V. are jointly and severally liable for EUR 49 000 000;

| (f) | Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik: EUR 1 000. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik: EUR 1 000.

Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym group and the YKK group

| (a) | YKK Corporation Japan, YKK Holding Europe B.V. and YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 19 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

YKK Corporation Japan, YKK Holding Europe B.V. and YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 19 500 000.

Cartel 3: The tripartite cooperation between the YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group

| (a) | YKK Corporation Japan and YKK Holding Europe B.V., jointly and severally liable: EUR 62 500 000; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

YKK Corporation Japan and YKK Holding Europe B.V., jointly and severally liable: EUR 62 500 000;

| (b) | Coats Holdings Ltd. and Coats Deutschland GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 12 155 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Coats Holdings Ltd. and Coats Deutschland GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 12 155 000;

| (c) | William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 6 727 500, of which Éclair Prym Group S.A. is jointly and severally liable for: EUR 5 850 000. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 6 727 500, of which Éclair Prym Group S.A. is jointly and severally liable for: EUR 5 850 000.

Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats group and the Prym group

| (a) | William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 8 897 500; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, jointly and severally liable: EUR 8 897 500;

| (b) | Coats Holdings Ltd.: EUR 110 250 000. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Coats Holdings Ltd.: EUR 110 250 000.

| (37) | The undertakings listed above shall immediately bring to an end their infringement, insofar as they have not already done so. They shall refrain from repeating any act or conduct as the infringement found in this case, and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The undertakings listed above shall immediately bring to an end their infringement, insofar as they have not already done so. They shall refrain from repeating any act or conduct as the infringement found in this case, and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect.

---

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

(2)  OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3.

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

(4)  OJ C 207, 18.7.1996, p. 4.

---

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/13

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/09)

| Member State | Italy |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Pantelleria-Trapani and vice versa

  Pantelleria-Palermo and vice versa

  Lampedusa-Palermo and vice versa

  Lampedusa-Catania and vice versa

  Trapani-Milano Linate and vice versa

  Trapani-Roma Fiumicino and vice versa |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 180 days after the date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained | Ente nazionale per l'aviazione civile (ENAC) |
| Direzione centrale regolazione economica |
| Direzione trasporto aero |
| Viale del Castro Pretorio, n. 118 |
| I-00185 Roma |
| www.enac-italia.it |
| E-mail: trasporto.aereo@enac.rupa.it |

Member State

Italy

Concerned route

Pantelleria-Trapani and vice versa

Pantelleria-Palermo and vice versa

Lampedusa-Palermo and vice versa

Lampedusa-Catania and vice versa

Trapani-Milano Linate and vice versa

Trapani-Roma Fiumicino and vice versa

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

180 days after the date of publication of this notice

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained

Ente nazionale per l'aviazione civile (ENAC)

Direzione centrale regolazione economica

Direzione trasporto aero

Viale del Castro Pretorio, n. 118

I-00185 Roma

www.enac-italia.it

E-mail: trasporto.aereo@enac.rupa.it

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/14

---

Call for applications 2009

Second Programme of Community action in the field of Health (2008-2013)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 47/10)

A call for applications ‘Health — 2009’ is launched today within the framework of the Second Programme of Community action in the field of Health (2008-2013) (1).

This call for applications consists of the following parts:

| — | a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of projects, |
| --- | --- |

—

a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of projects,

| — | a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of conferences, |
| --- | --- |

—

a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to specific actions in the form of conferences,

| — | a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to the functioning of non governmental bodies and specialised networks (operating grants), |
| --- | --- |

—

a call for proposals for the award of a financial contribution to the functioning of non governmental bodies and specialised networks (operating grants),

| — | an invitation to Member States and participating countries for submission of joint actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

an invitation to Member States and participating countries for submission of joint actions.

The deadline for submissions of the proposals under each call is 20 May 2009.

All the information, including the Commission Decision of 23 February 2009 on the adoption of the work plan for 2009 for the implementation of the second programme of Community action in the field of health (2008-2013), and on the selection, award and other criteria for financial contributions to the actions of this programme, are available on the website of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/eahc

---

(1)  Decision No 1350/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 establishing a Second Programme of Community action in the field of Health (2008-2013) (OJ L 301, 20.11.2007, p. 3-13).

---

26.2.2009

| 26.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/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.

---