# Official Journal C 329/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.329.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 329 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 537 December 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.329.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 329

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 537 December 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 329/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6014 — GDF Suez/Certain Assets of Acea Electrabel) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2010/C 329/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5875 — Lactalis/Puleva Dairy) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 329/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6014 — GDF Suez/Certain Assets of Acea Electrabel) (
  1
  )

1

1

2010/C 329/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5875 — Lactalis/Puleva Dairy) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 329/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2010/C 329/04 | Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011 under certain quotas opened by the Community for products in the poultrymeat sector | 3 |
| 2010/C 329/05 | Communication from the Commission amending the Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2010/C 329/06 | Communication of the Commission amending the period of application of Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2010/C 329/07 | Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 January 2011, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2010/C 329/08 | Infringement 2006/4524 — AUMSA — pre-closure letter | 11 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 329/03

Euro exchange rates

2

2010/C 329/04

Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011 under certain quotas opened by the Community for products in the poultrymeat sector

3

2010/C 329/05

Communication from the Commission amending the Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (
  1
  )

1

4

2010/C 329/06

Communication of the Commission amending the period of application of Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (
  1
  )

1

6

2010/C 329/07

Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 January 2011, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (
  1
  )

1

7

2010/C 329/08

Infringement 2006/4524 — AUMSA — pre-closure letter

11

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 329/09 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5999 — Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme) (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2010/C 329/10 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee) (
  1
  ) | 13 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2010/C 329/09

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5999 — Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme) (
  1
  )

1

12

2010/C 329/10

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee) (
  1
  )

1

13

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

II Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6014 — GDF Suez/Certain Assets of Acea Electrabel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 329/01

On 24 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6014. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6014. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5875 — Lactalis/Puleva Dairy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 329/02

On 23 August 2010, 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 French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5875. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5875. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

6 December 2010

2010/C 329/03

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3280 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 110,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4525 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84720 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1115 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3084 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9785 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,043 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,15 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7098 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0190 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3060 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9722 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3454 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3366 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3113 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7469 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7345 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 507,76 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,1756 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,8291 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3753 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 983,86 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1790 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,097 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,5395 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,860 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2405 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,4460 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 59,6700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3280

JPY

Japanese yen

110,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4525

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84720

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1115

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3084

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9785

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,043

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,15

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7098

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0190

RON

Romanian leu

4,3060

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9722

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3454

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3366

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3113

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7469

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7345

KRW

South Korean won

1 507,76

ZAR

South African rand

9,1756

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,8291

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3753

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 983,86

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1790

PHP

Philippine peso

58,097

RUB

Russian rouble

41,5395

THB

Thai baht

39,860

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2405

MXN

Mexican peso

16,4460

INR

Indian rupee

59,6700

---

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

---

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/3

---

Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011 under certain quotas opened by the Community for products in the poultrymeat sector

2010/C 329/04

Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (1) opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultrymeat sector. The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of October 2010 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2011 do not, for quotas 09.4212, 09.4214, 09.4217 and 09.4218, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (2), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 April to 30 June 2011; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.

---

(1)  OJ L 142, 5.6.2007, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4212 | 74 088 000 |
| 09.4214 | 3 269 290 |
| 09.4217 | 18 202 000 |
| 09.4218 | 9 276 800 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2011

(in kg)

09.4212

74 088 000

09.4214

3 269 290

09.4217

18 202 000

09.4218

9 276 800

---

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/4

---

Communication from the Commission amending the Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 329/05

1.   INTRODUCTION

The Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises (1) (the guidelines) set out the conditions that Member States should respect when granting State aid to promote risk capital investments, particularly with a view to ensuring that such aid does not crowd out private investors and private intermediaries.

The guidelines apply from 18 August 2006. Certain provisions of the guidelines have since been included in Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (2) which entered into force on 29 August 2008.

The Communication from the Commission — Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (3) applies from 17 December 2008 and includes a temporary adaptation of certain limits set out in the guidelines by allowing a lower participation by private investors and higher investment tranches.

The Commission undertook a review of whether certain adaptations introduced by the Temporary Framework should be made permanent. Market data suggest that venture capital markets have still not recovered to pre-crisis levels. The pool of equity investors has decreased in scope compared to 2008. The likely explanation is that risk aversion has augmented. Based on the latest available data and the experience of previous downturns, there are strong indications that particularly early stage technology businesses will experience a prolonged undersupply of risk capital, even if these companies have growth prospects.

Moreover, recent research shows that the upper boundary of the SME equity gap may be wider than has previously been recognised.

On that basis, the Commission considers that the following amendments should be made to the guidelines.

2.   AMENDMENTS TO THE GUIDELINES

The following amendments to the Community guidelines on State aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises apply from 1 January 2011:

| 1. | Point 4.3.1 is replaced by the following:
  ‘4.3.1.   Maximum level of investment tranches

  The risk capital measure must provide for tranches of finance, whether wholly or partly financed through State aid, not exceeding EUR 2,5 million per target SME over each period of 12 months.’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

Point 4.3.1 is replaced by the following:

‘4.3.1.   Maximum level of investment tranches

The risk capital measure must provide for tranches of finance, whether wholly or partly financed through State aid, not exceeding EUR 2,5 million per target SME over each period of 12 months.’

| 2. | Point 5.1(a) is replaced by the following:
  ‘(a)   Measures providing for investment tranches beyond the safe-harbour threshold of EUR 2,5 million per target SME over each period of 12 months

  The Commission is aware of the constant fluctuation of the risk capital market and of the equity gap over time, as well as of the different degree by which enterprises are affected by the market failure depending on their size, on their stage of business development, and on their economic sector. Therefore, the Commission is prepared to consider declaring risk capital measures providing for investment tranches exceeding the threshold of EUR 2,5 million per enterprise per year compatible with the common market, provided the necessary evidence of the market failure is submitted.’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Point 5.1(a) is replaced by the following:

‘(a)   Measures providing for investment tranches beyond the safe-harbour threshold of EUR 2,5 million per target SME over each period of 12 months

The Commission is aware of the constant fluctuation of the risk capital market and of the equity gap over time, as well as of the different degree by which enterprises are affected by the market failure depending on their size, on their stage of business development, and on their economic sector. Therefore, the Commission is prepared to consider declaring risk capital measures providing for investment tranches exceeding the threshold of EUR 2,5 million per enterprise per year compatible with the common market, provided the necessary evidence of the market failure is submitted.’

| 3. | In Point 5.2.1, the heading and introductory part are replaced by the following:
  ‘5.2.1.   Existence and evidence of market failure

  For risk capital measures envisaging investment tranches into target enterprises beyond the conditions laid down in Section 4, in particular those providing for tranches above EUR 2,5 million per target SME over each period of 12 months, follow-on investments or financing of the expansion stage for medium-sized enterprises in non-assisted areas as well as for measures specifically involving an investment vehicle, the Commission will require additional evidence of the market failure being tackled at each level where aid may be present before declaring the proposed risk capital measure compatible with the common market. Such evidence must be based on a study showing the level of the “equity gap” with regard to the enterprises and sectors targeted by the risk capital measure. The relevant information concerns the supply of risk capital and the fundraising capital, as well as the significance of the venture capital industry in the local economy. It should ideally be provided for periods of three to five years preceding the implementation of the measure and also for the future, on the basis of reasonable projections, if available. The evidence submitted could also include the following elements:’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

In Point 5.2.1, the heading and introductory part are replaced by the following:

‘5.2.1.   Existence and evidence of market failure

For risk capital measures envisaging investment tranches into target enterprises beyond the conditions laid down in Section 4, in particular those providing for tranches above EUR 2,5 million per target SME over each period of 12 months, follow-on investments or financing of the expansion stage for medium-sized enterprises in non-assisted areas as well as for measures specifically involving an investment vehicle, the Commission will require additional evidence of the market failure being tackled at each level where aid may be present before declaring the proposed risk capital measure compatible with the common market. Such evidence must be based on a study showing the level of the “equity gap” with regard to the enterprises and sectors targeted by the risk capital measure. The relevant information concerns the supply of risk capital and the fundraising capital, as well as the significance of the venture capital industry in the local economy. It should ideally be provided for periods of three to five years preceding the implementation of the measure and also for the future, on the basis of reasonable projections, if available. The evidence submitted could also include the following elements:’

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 18.8.2006, p. 2.

(2)  OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3.

(3)  OJ C 16, 21.1.2009, p. 1.

---

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/6

---

Communication of the Commission amending the period of application of Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 329/06

I.   INTRODUCTION

The Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (1) (‘the 1997 Communication’) was adopted in 1997 and was to apply for a period of five years from 1 January 1998. It was subsequently amended and its period of application was prolonged in 2001 (2), 2004 (3) and 2005 (4). It now applies until 31 December 2010.

The 1997 Communication stipulates that marketable risks cannot be covered by export-credit insurance with the support of Member States. Marketable risks are commercial and political risks on public and non-public debtors established in countries listed in the Annex to that Communication, with a maximum risk period of less than two years. However, point 4.4 of the 1997 Communication gives the possibility, under certain conditions, for those risks to be temporarily taken on to the account of a public or publicly supported export-credit insurer.

In December 2008, as a consequence of the financial crisis, the Commission adopted the Communication from the Commission — Temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (5), which introduced a temporary procedural simplification to point 4.4 of the 1997 Communication, regarding the demonstration of the unavailability of cover for short-term export-credit insurance.

Since its adoption in 1997 and before the financial crisis, the Commission had only applied the 1997 Communication in few cases. Most of the relevant experience available to assess the public intervention in the short-term segment of the export credit market is very recent and cannot yet be fully evaluated. In addition, as a consequence of the current financial crisis, a lack of insurance or reinsurance capacity to cover marketable risks may still exist in some Member State and justify State intervention.

Having regard to the limited evidence available and the need to ensure continuity and legal certainty in the treatment of short-term export-credit insurance with the support of the State in uncertain economic situation, the Commission has decided to extend the period of application of the 1997 Communication until 31 December 2012.

II.   AMENDMENT TO THE 1997 COMMUNICATION

The following amendment to the Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance applies from 1 January 2011:

| — | point 4.5 is replaced by the following:

  ‘This Communication applies until 31 December 2012.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

point 4.5 is replaced by the following:

‘This Communication applies until 31 December 2012.’

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, p. 4.

1

(2)  OJ C 217, 2.8.2001, p. 2.

2

(3)  OJ C 307, 11.12.2004, p. 12.

3

(4)  OJ C 325, 22.12.2005, p. 22.

4

(5)  OJ C 16, 22.1.2009, p. 1.

5

---

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/7

---

Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 January 2011, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 329/07

1.   INTRODUCTION

| 1. | Since the beginning of the global financial crisis in the autumn of 2008, the Commission has issued four communications which provided detailed guidance on the criteria for the compatibility of State support to financial institutions (1) with the requirements of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The communications in question are the Communication on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (2) (the Banking Communication); the Communication on the recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition (3) (the Recapitalisation Communication); the Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (4) (the Impaired Assets Communication) and the Communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (5) (the Restructuring Communication). Three of those four communications, the Banking, Recapitalisation and Impaired Assets Communications, set out the prerequisites for the compatibility of the main types of assistance granted by Member States — guarantees on liabilities, recapitalisations and asset relief measures — while the Restructuring Communication details the particular features that a restructuring plan (or a viability plan) has to display in the specific context of crisis-related State aid granted to financial institutions on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Since the beginning of the global financial crisis in the autumn of 2008, the Commission has issued four communications which provided detailed guidance on the criteria for the compatibility of State support to financial institutions (1) with the requirements of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The communications in question are the Communication on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (2) (the Banking Communication); the Communication on the recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition (3) (the Recapitalisation Communication); the Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (4) (the Impaired Assets Communication) and the Communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (5) (the Restructuring Communication). Three of those four communications, the Banking, Recapitalisation and Impaired Assets Communications, set out the prerequisites for the compatibility of the main types of assistance granted by Member States — guarantees on liabilities, recapitalisations and asset relief measures — while the Restructuring Communication details the particular features that a restructuring plan (or a viability plan) has to display in the specific context of crisis-related State aid granted to financial institutions on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.

| 2. | All four communications highlight the temporary nature of the acceptability of such aid measures; each states that any such aid measure can only be justified as an emergency response to the unprecedented stress in financial markets and only as long as those exceptional circumstances prevail. The Restructuring Communication is valid for restructuring aid notified by 31 December 2010 whilst the other communications do not have an expiry date. |
| --- | --- |

2.

All four communications highlight the temporary nature of the acceptability of such aid measures; each states that any such aid measure can only be justified as an emergency response to the unprecedented stress in financial markets and only as long as those exceptional circumstances prevail. The Restructuring Communication is valid for restructuring aid notified by 31 December 2010 whilst the other communications do not have an expiry date.

| 3. | This communication sets out the parameters for the temporary acceptability of crisis-related assistance to banks as from 1 January 2011. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This communication sets out the parameters for the temporary acceptability of crisis-related assistance to banks as from 1 January 2011.

2.   THE CONTINUED APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 107(3)(b) OF THE TREATY AND THE EXTENSION OF THE RESTRUCTURING COMMUNICATION

| 4. | The Commission communications on crisis-related aid to banks, as well as all individual decisions on aid measures and schemes falling within the scope of those Communications, are adopted on the legal basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, which exceptionally allows for aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State. In the most acute stage of the crisis, the condition of a serious disturbance was unquestionably met across the Union in view of the extraordinary stress in financial markets, later combined with an exceptionally severe contraction in the real economy. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission communications on crisis-related aid to banks, as well as all individual decisions on aid measures and schemes falling within the scope of those Communications, are adopted on the legal basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, which exceptionally allows for aid to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State. In the most acute stage of the crisis, the condition of a serious disturbance was unquestionably met across the Union in view of the extraordinary stress in financial markets, later combined with an exceptionally severe contraction in the real economy.

| 5. | The economic recovery, which has slowly taken hold since the beginning of 2010, has been proceeding at a somewhat faster pace than expected earlier this year. While recovery is still fragile and uneven across the Union, some Member States are showing modest or even more robust growth rates. In addition, despite some pockets of vulnerability, in broad terms, the health of the banking sector has improved compared with the situation one year ago. As a result, the existence of a serious disturbance in the economy of all Member States is no longer as self-evident as in earlier stages of the crisis. While it is aware of those developments, the Commission still considers that the requirements for State aid to be approved pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty are fulfilled in view of the recent reappearance of stress in financial markets and the risk of wider negative spillover effects, for the reasons set out in this communication. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The economic recovery, which has slowly taken hold since the beginning of 2010, has been proceeding at a somewhat faster pace than expected earlier this year. While recovery is still fragile and uneven across the Union, some Member States are showing modest or even more robust growth rates. In addition, despite some pockets of vulnerability, in broad terms, the health of the banking sector has improved compared with the situation one year ago. As a result, the existence of a serious disturbance in the economy of all Member States is no longer as self-evident as in earlier stages of the crisis. While it is aware of those developments, the Commission still considers that the requirements for State aid to be approved pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty are fulfilled in view of the recent reappearance of stress in financial markets and the risk of wider negative spillover effects, for the reasons set out in this communication.

| 6. | The re-emergence of tensions in sovereign debt markets forcefully illustrates the continued volatility in financial markets. The high level of interconnectedness and interdependence within the financial sector in the Union has given rise to market concerns about contagion. The high volatility of financial markets and the uncertainty about the economic outlook justifies maintaining, as a safety net, the possibility for Member States to argue the need to have recourse to crisis-related support measures on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The re-emergence of tensions in sovereign debt markets forcefully illustrates the continued volatility in financial markets. The high level of interconnectedness and interdependence within the financial sector in the Union has given rise to market concerns about contagion. The high volatility of financial markets and the uncertainty about the economic outlook justifies maintaining, as a safety net, the possibility for Member States to argue the need to have recourse to crisis-related support measures on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.

| 7. | Therefore, the Banking, Recapitalisation and Impaired Assets Communications, which provide guidance on the criteria for the compatibility of crisis-related aid to banks on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty — most notably in the form of government guarantees, recapitalisations and asset relief measures — need to stay in place beyond 31 December 2010. In the same vein, the Restructuring Communication, which addresses the follow-up to such support measures, also has to remain applicable beyond that date. The temporal scope of the Restructuring Communication — the only one of the four communications with a specified expiry date, 31 December 2010 — should therefore be extended to restructuring aid notified by 31 December 2011. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Therefore, the Banking, Recapitalisation and Impaired Assets Communications, which provide guidance on the criteria for the compatibility of crisis-related aid to banks on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty — most notably in the form of government guarantees, recapitalisations and asset relief measures — need to stay in place beyond 31 December 2010. In the same vein, the Restructuring Communication, which addresses the follow-up to such support measures, also has to remain applicable beyond that date. The temporal scope of the Restructuring Communication — the only one of the four communications with a specified expiry date, 31 December 2010 — should therefore be extended to restructuring aid notified by 31 December 2011.

| 8. | The communications, however, need to be adapted with a view to preparing the transition to the post-crisis regime. In parallel, new, permanent State aid rules for bank rescue and restructuring in normal market conditions will have to be drawn up and should, market conditions permitting, apply as of 1 January 2012. The possible continued need for crisis-induced extraordinary State aid to the financial sector has to be evaluated with that objective in mind. It must be addressed by setting the requirements for the compatibility of such assistance in a way that best prepares for the new regime for the rescue and restructuring of banks based on Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The communications, however, need to be adapted with a view to preparing the transition to the post-crisis regime. In parallel, new, permanent State aid rules for bank rescue and restructuring in normal market conditions will have to be drawn up and should, market conditions permitting, apply as of 1 January 2012. The possible continued need for crisis-induced extraordinary State aid to the financial sector has to be evaluated with that objective in mind. It must be addressed by setting the requirements for the compatibility of such assistance in a way that best prepares for the new regime for the rescue and restructuring of banks based on Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.

3.   THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EXIT PROCESS

| 9. | The continued availability of aid measures pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty in the face of exceptional market conditions should not obstruct the process of disengagement from temporary extraordinary support measures for banks. At its meeting on 2 December 2009, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council concluded on the necessity to design a strategy for the phasing out of support measures which should be transparent and duly coordinated among Member States to avoid negative spillover effects but take into account the different specific circumstances across Member States (6). The conclusions further set out that, in principle, the phasing-out process concerning the various forms of assistance to banks should start with the unwinding of government guarantee schemes, encouraging the exit of sound banks and inducing other banks to address their weaknesses. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The continued availability of aid measures pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty in the face of exceptional market conditions should not obstruct the process of disengagement from temporary extraordinary support measures for banks. At its meeting on 2 December 2009, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council concluded on the necessity to design a strategy for the phasing out of support measures which should be transparent and duly coordinated among Member States to avoid negative spillover effects but take into account the different specific circumstances across Member States (6). The conclusions further set out that, in principle, the phasing-out process concerning the various forms of assistance to banks should start with the unwinding of government guarantee schemes, encouraging the exit of sound banks and inducing other banks to address their weaknesses.

| 10. | Since 1 July 2010, the Commission has applied tighter conditions for the compatibility of government guarantees under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty (7) by introducing an increased guarantee fee and the new requirement of a viability plan for beneficiaries that have recourse to new guarantees and exceed a certain threshold of total outstanding guaranteed liabilities both in absolute terms and in relation to total liabilities (8). The Commission expressly limited the scope of such modified guarantee schemes to the second half of 2010. Considering the current market situation and given the limited time since the introduction of the new pricing conditions, no further adjustment of those conditions appears necessary at present. Government guarantee schemes for which State aid approval expires at the end of 2010 can therefore be authorised for another six months until 30 June 2011 on the basis of the conditions introduced as of July 2010 (9). In line with previous practice, the Commission will reassess the conditions for the compatibility of State guarantees beyond 30 June 2011 in the first half of 2011. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Since 1 July 2010, the Commission has applied tighter conditions for the compatibility of government guarantees under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty (7) by introducing an increased guarantee fee and the new requirement of a viability plan for beneficiaries that have recourse to new guarantees and exceed a certain threshold of total outstanding guaranteed liabilities both in absolute terms and in relation to total liabilities (8). The Commission expressly limited the scope of such modified guarantee schemes to the second half of 2010. Considering the current market situation and given the limited time since the introduction of the new pricing conditions, no further adjustment of those conditions appears necessary at present. Government guarantee schemes for which State aid approval expires at the end of 2010 can therefore be authorised for another six months until 30 June 2011 on the basis of the conditions introduced as of July 2010 (9). In line with previous practice, the Commission will reassess the conditions for the compatibility of State guarantees beyond 30 June 2011 in the first half of 2011.

| 11. | In the following paragraphs, the Commission will set out the steps of a gradual phasing out with regard to recapitalisation and impaired asset measures, as, for those measures, no such steps have yet been taken beyond the exit incentives already present through pricing. |
| --- | --- |

11.

In the following paragraphs, the Commission will set out the steps of a gradual phasing out with regard to recapitalisation and impaired asset measures, as, for those measures, no such steps have yet been taken beyond the exit incentives already present through pricing.

4.   REMOVAL OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUND AND DISTRESSED BANKS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBMITTING A RESTRUCTURING PLAN

| 12. | At the beginning of the crisis, the Commission established a distinction between unsound/distressed financial institutions and fundamentally sound financial institutions, that is to say, financial institutions suffering from endogenous, structural problems linked, for instance, to their particular business model or investment strategy and financial institutions whose problems merely and largely had to do with the extreme situation in the financial crisis rather than with the soundness of their business model, inefficiency or excessive risk taking. The distinction is defined in particular on the basis of a number of indicators set out in the Recapitalisation Communication: capital adequacy, current credit default swap (CDs) spreads, current rating of the bank and its outlook as well as, inter alia, the relative size of the recapitalisation. Regarding the latter, the Commission deems aid received under the form of recapitalisation and asset relief measures of more than 2 % of the bank's risk weighted assets to be an indicator to distinguish between fundamentally sound and distressed banks. The recapitalisation of a distressed bank triggers the requirement to submit a restructuring plan to the Commission, while the recapitalisation of a sound bank triggers the requirement to submit a viability plan. |
| --- | --- |

12.

At the beginning of the crisis, the Commission established a distinction between unsound/distressed financial institutions and fundamentally sound financial institutions, that is to say, financial institutions suffering from endogenous, structural problems linked, for instance, to their particular business model or investment strategy and financial institutions whose problems merely and largely had to do with the extreme situation in the financial crisis rather than with the soundness of their business model, inefficiency or excessive risk taking. The distinction is defined in particular on the basis of a number of indicators set out in the Recapitalisation Communication: capital adequacy, current credit default swap (CDs) spreads, current rating of the bank and its outlook as well as, inter alia, the relative size of the recapitalisation. Regarding the latter, the Commission deems aid received under the form of recapitalisation and asset relief measures of more than 2 % of the bank's risk weighted assets to be an indicator to distinguish between fundamentally sound and distressed banks. The recapitalisation of a distressed bank triggers the requirement to submit a restructuring plan to the Commission, while the recapitalisation of a sound bank triggers the requirement to submit a viability plan.

| 13. | The original rationale for establishing that distinction and for setting a range of indicators, including a threshold of 2 % of the bank's risk weighted assets, was the fear that capital needs resulting from impairments, higher expectations of the markets as to the capital levels of banks and temporary difficulties in raising capital on markets would otherwise lead to sound banks diminishing their lending to the real economy in order to avoid having to submit a restructuring plan when having recourse to State resources. At present, however, the banking sector overall faces fewer difficulties in raising capital on the markets or, inter alia, through retained earnings (10) and can therefore meet their capital needs without recourse to State aid (11). The amount of capital raised by financial institutions on the market has significantly increased over the course of 2009 and 2010, demonstrating renewed access for financial institutions to capital markets as well as anticipation of new regulatory requirements (12). |
| --- | --- |

13.

The original rationale for establishing that distinction and for setting a range of indicators, including a threshold of 2 % of the bank's risk weighted assets, was the fear that capital needs resulting from impairments, higher expectations of the markets as to the capital levels of banks and temporary difficulties in raising capital on markets would otherwise lead to sound banks diminishing their lending to the real economy in order to avoid having to submit a restructuring plan when having recourse to State resources. At present, however, the banking sector overall faces fewer difficulties in raising capital on the markets or, inter alia, through retained earnings (10) and can therefore meet their capital needs without recourse to State aid (11). The amount of capital raised by financial institutions on the market has significantly increased over the course of 2009 and 2010, demonstrating renewed access for financial institutions to capital markets as well as anticipation of new regulatory requirements (12).

| 14. | The distinction between sound and distressed banks therefore no longer seems relevant in order to determine which banks should enter into a discussion about their restructuring with the Commission. As a result, banks which still have recourse to the State in 2011 for raising capital or for impaired assets measures should be required to submit to the Commission a restructuring plan showing the bank’s determination to undertake the necessary restructuring efforts and return to viability without undue delay. Thus, as of 1 January 2011, a restructuring plan will be required from every beneficiary of a new recapitalisation or an impaired asset measure (13). |
| --- | --- |

14.

The distinction between sound and distressed banks therefore no longer seems relevant in order to determine which banks should enter into a discussion about their restructuring with the Commission. As a result, banks which still have recourse to the State in 2011 for raising capital or for impaired assets measures should be required to submit to the Commission a restructuring plan showing the bank’s determination to undertake the necessary restructuring efforts and return to viability without undue delay. Thus, as of 1 January 2011, a restructuring plan will be required from every beneficiary of a new recapitalisation or an impaired asset measure (13).

| 15. | In assessing the restructuring needs of banks, the Commission will take into consideration the specific situation of each institution, the degree to which such a restructuring is necessary to restore viability without further State support as well as prior reliance on State aid. As a general rule, the more significant the reliance on State aid, the stronger the indication of a need to undergo in-depth restructuring in order to ensure long-term viability. In addition, the individual assessment will take account of any specific situation on the markets and will apply the restructuring framework in an appropriately flexible manner in the event of a severe shock endangering financial stability in one or more Member States. |
| --- | --- |

15.

In assessing the restructuring needs of banks, the Commission will take into consideration the specific situation of each institution, the degree to which such a restructuring is necessary to restore viability without further State support as well as prior reliance on State aid. As a general rule, the more significant the reliance on State aid, the stronger the indication of a need to undergo in-depth restructuring in order to ensure long-term viability. In addition, the individual assessment will take account of any specific situation on the markets and will apply the restructuring framework in an appropriately flexible manner in the event of a severe shock endangering financial stability in one or more Member States.

| 16. | Requiring a restructuring plan for banks benefiting from structural aid (that is to say, recapitalisation and/or impaired asset measures) — while at the same time accepting that the mere use of refinancing guarantees would still not trigger the requirement to submit a restructuring plan (14) — conveys the signal that banks have to prepare for a return to normal market mechanisms without State support as the financial sector gradually emerges from crisis conditions. It provides an incentive for individual institutions that still need aid to accelerate the necessary restructuring. At the same time, it affords sufficient flexibility to duly take account of potentially diverse circumstances affecting the situation of different banks or national financial markets. It also caters for the possibility of an overall or country-specific deterioration in relation to financial stability, which cannot be excluded at present, given the residual fragility in the situation of financial markets. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Requiring a restructuring plan for banks benefiting from structural aid (that is to say, recapitalisation and/or impaired asset measures) — while at the same time accepting that the mere use of refinancing guarantees would still not trigger the requirement to submit a restructuring plan (14) — conveys the signal that banks have to prepare for a return to normal market mechanisms without State support as the financial sector gradually emerges from crisis conditions. It provides an incentive for individual institutions that still need aid to accelerate the necessary restructuring. At the same time, it affords sufficient flexibility to duly take account of potentially diverse circumstances affecting the situation of different banks or national financial markets. It also caters for the possibility of an overall or country-specific deterioration in relation to financial stability, which cannot be excluded at present, given the residual fragility in the situation of financial markets.

5.   TEMPORAL SCOPE, GENERAL OUTLOOK

| 17. | The continued applicability of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty and the extension of the Restructuring Communication will be for one year until 31 December 2011 (15). This extension under changed conditions should also be seen in the context of a gradual transition to a more permanent regime of State aid guidelines for the rescue and restructuring of banks based on Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty which should, market conditions permitting, apply as of 1 January 2012. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The continued applicability of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty and the extension of the Restructuring Communication will be for one year until 31 December 2011 (15). This extension under changed conditions should also be seen in the context of a gradual transition to a more permanent regime of State aid guidelines for the rescue and restructuring of banks based on Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty which should, market conditions permitting, apply as of 1 January 2012.

---

(1)  For the convenience of the reader, financial institutions are referred to simply as ‘banks’ in this document.

(2)  OJ C 270, 25.10.2008, p. 8.

(3)  OJ C 10, 15.1.2009, p. 2.

(4)  OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, p. 1.

(5)  OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, p. 9.

(6)  These conclusions were endorsed by the European Council at its meeting on 11 December 2009. In the same vein, the European Parliament insisted in its Resolution of 9 March 2010 on the Report on Competition Policy 2008 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-0050) that State support to financial institutions should not be unduly prolonged and that exit strategies should be elaborated as soon as possible.

(7)  See Directorate-General for Competition staff working document of 30 April 2010 on the application of State aid rules to government guarantee schemes covering bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/phase_out_bank_guarantees.pdf)

(8)  With a flexibility clause permitting a reassessment of the situation and appropriate remedies in the event of a severe new shock to the financial markets across the Union or in one or more Member States. None of the Member States that have notified an extension of their guarantee schemes until the end of 2010 have invoked this flexibility clause.

(9)  The same applies for liquidity schemes.

(10)  In order to increase capital buffers, banks have decided to sell non-strategic assets such as industrial participations, or to focus on specific geographical sectors. See on this point European Central Bank, EU Banking Sector Stability, September 2010.

(11)  According to the European Central Bank, banks’ overall solvency ratio increased substantially in the course of 2009 in all Member States. In addition, information for a sample of large banks in the Union suggests that the improvement in capital ratios continued into the first half of 2010, supported by an increase in retained earnings as well as by further private capital raising and public capital injections for some banks. See European Central Bank: EU Banking Sector Stability, September 2010.

(12)  The future regulatory environment drawn up by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), so-called Basel III, sets a path for the implementation of the new capital rules which should allow banks to meet the new capital needs over time. In this context, it is interesting to note that, first, most of the largest banks in the Union have reinforced their capital buffers over the last two years to increase their loss absorption capacity and, second, the other banks in the Union should have sufficient time (up to 2019) to build up their capital buffer using, inter alia, retained earnings. It should also be noted that that the ‘transitional arrangements’ provided by the new regulatory framework have established a ‘grandfathering period’ until 1 January 2018 for existing public sector capital injections. Moreover, a quantitative impact assessment done by the Basel Committee, confirmed by Commission calculations, points to a rather moderate impact on bank lending. Therefore, the new capital requirements are not expected to impact the proposal outlined in this communication.

(13)  This will apply to all recapitalisation or impaired asset measures, irrespective of whether they are designed as individual measures or granted in the context of a scheme.

(14)  However, the Directorate-General for competition staff working document on the application of State aid rules to government guarantee schemes covering bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010 sets a threshold of 5 % of outstanding guaranteed liabilities over total liabilities and at a total amount of guaranteed debt of EUR 500 million above which a viability review is required.

(15)  Consistent with the Commission's previous practice, existing or new bank support schemes (irrespective of the support instruments they contain: guarantee, recapitalisation, liquidity, asset relief, other) will only be prolonged/approved for a duration of six months to allow for further adjustments, if necessary, in mid-2011.

---

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/11

---

Infringement 2006/4524 — AUMSA — pre-closure letter

2010/C 329/08

The object of infringement 2006/4524 was the creation of mixed companies by AUMSA, notably the creation of the mixed capital company Cabanyal 2010 SA, in breach of the EU public procurement rules, in as much as the creation of that company amounted to the award of a public contract by AUMSA in breach of the referred rules.

The Commission is satisfied that, at the end of the period fixed within the reasoned opinion sent to the Spanish authorities, the mixed company Cabanyal 2010 SA became a wholly publicly owned company with no private participation and that, consequently, the alleged breach ceased to exist.

For this reason, the pursuance of the alleged breach was abandoned by the Commission at the stage of referring the bundled Cases 2006/2366 and 2006/4524 to the Court.

Consequently, the services of the Commission will soon be proposing formal closure of this case to the College of Commissioners.

Should the complainants have any information capable of altering the referred assessment, they are invited to make them known to the Commission at their earliest convenience, and in any case within four weeks of publication of this notice.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5999 — Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 329/09

| 1. | On 29 November 2010 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Sanofi-Aventis (France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Genzyme (U.S.) by way of public bid announced on 4 October 2010. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 29 November 2010 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Sanofi-Aventis (France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Genzyme (U.S.) by way of public bid announced on 4 October 2010.

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






  — | for undertaking Sanofi-Aventis: development, production, distribution and marketing of pharmaceuticals, human vaccines, and animal health products, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for undertaking Sanofi-Aventis: development, production, distribution and marketing of pharmaceuticals, human vaccines, and animal health products,

| — | for undertaking Genzyme: research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals, in particular biotechnology products used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, cardiometabolic and renal diseases, biosurgery and hematologic oncology and multiple sclerosis. |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking Genzyme: research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals, in particular biotechnology products used in the treatment of rare genetic diseases, cardiometabolic and renal diseases, biosurgery and hematologic oncology and multiple sclerosis.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5999 — Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5999 — Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---

| 7.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/13

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 329/10

| 1. | On 29 November 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Intel Corporation (‘Intel’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking McAfee Inc. (‘McAfee’) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 29 November 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Intel Corporation (‘Intel’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking McAfee Inc. (‘McAfee’) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for Intel: development and production of advanced integrated digital technology products, primarily integrated circuits, for industries such as computing and communications, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Intel: development and production of advanced integrated digital technology products, primarily integrated circuits, for industries such as computing and communications,

| — | for McAfee: design and development of information technology security products and services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for McAfee: design and development of information technology security products and services.

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

3.

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

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee, to the following address:





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

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5984 — Intel/McAfee, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

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

---