# Official Journal C 86/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.086.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 86 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5215 April 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.086.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 86

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5215 April 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 086/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2009/C 086/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2009/C 086/03 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 30 November 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber | 3 |
| 2009/C 086/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 18 January 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber | 4 |
| 2009/C 086/05 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.628 — Chloroprene Rubber (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) | 5 |
| 2009/C 086/06 | Summary of Commission Decision of 23.1.2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber) (notified under document number C(2008) 282)
   (
  1
  ) | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 086/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2009/C 086/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2009/C 086/03

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 30 November 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber

3

2009/C 086/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 18 January 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber

4

2009/C 086/05

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.628 — Chloroprene Rubber (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)

(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)

5

2009/C 086/06

Summary of Commission Decision of 23.1.2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber) (notified under document number C(2008) 282)
   (
  1
  )

(notified under document number C(2008) 282)

1

7

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 086/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5410 — ForFarmers/Cefetra) (
  1
  ) | 11 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 086/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5410 — ForFarmers/Cefetra) (
  1
  )

1

11

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 15.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 April 2009

2009/C 86/01

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3276 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,57 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4493 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89150 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8460 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5151 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7880 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,571 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 289,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3480 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1545 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0856 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8221 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6117 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2891 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2546 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9904 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 755,59 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,9557 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0702 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3808 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 470,84 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7614 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,080 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,3217 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,984 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8859 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3650 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,8160 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3276

JPY

Japanese yen

132,57

DKK

Danish krone

7,4493

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89150

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8460

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5151

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7880

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,571

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

289,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3480

RON

Romanian leu

4,1545

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0856

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8221

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6117

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2891

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2546

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9904

KRW

South Korean won

1 755,59

ZAR

South African rand

11,9557

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0702

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3808

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 470,84

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7614

PHP

Philippine peso

63,080

RUB

Russian rouble

44,3217

THB

Thai baht

46,984

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8859

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3650

INR

Indian rupee

65,8160

---

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

---

| 15.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 April 2009

2009/C 86/02

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3273 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4504 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,9044 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,859 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,526 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,793 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,51 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 289,85 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4285 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,147 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,09 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8595 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6328 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2872 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,2875 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0111 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 759,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,0532 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0717 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,397 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 098,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7869 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,63 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,5043 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,046 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9044 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,59 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,345 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3273

JPY

Japanese yen

133,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,4504

GBP

Pound sterling

0,9044

SEK

Swedish krona

10,859

CHF

Swiss franc

1,526

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,793

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,51

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

289,85

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4285

RON

Romanian leu

4,147

TRY

Turkish lira

2,09

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8595

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6328

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2872

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,2875

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0111

KRW

South Korean won

1 759,51

ZAR

South African rand

12,0532

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0717

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,397

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 098,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7869

PHP

Philippine peso

63,63

RUB

Russian rouble

44,5043

THB

Thai baht

47,046

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9044

MXN

Mexican peso

17,59

INR

Indian rupee

66,345

---

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

---

| 15.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 30 November 2007 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber

2009/C 86/03

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the product and the geographic area affected by the cartel. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the product and the geographic area affected by the cartel.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment that the cartel constitutes a single and continuous infringement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment that the cartel constitutes a single and continuous infringement.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission as regards the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission as regards the addressees of the draft decision.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's reasoning on the basic amount of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's reasoning on the basic amount of the fines.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2002 Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the application of the 2002 Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines.

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

9.

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

---

| 15.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 18 January 2008 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/38.628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber

2009/C 86/04

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

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

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reductions of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

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

---

| 15.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/5

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.628 — Chloroprene Rubber

(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)

2009/C 86/05

The draft Decision gives rise to the following observations:

INTRODUCTION

The draft Decision in the above mentioned case gives rise to the following observations.

The investigation in this case was triggered by an application for immunity on 13 December 2002 under the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the Leniency Notice) (1) concerning the existence of a cartel in the NBR market in Europe.

Subsequently, the undertakings Bayer AG and Zeon Corporation applied for leniency on 30 January and 27 August 2003, respectively. On 29 March 2007, Bayer and Zeon were informed of the Commissions intention to grant them a reduction of fine within a band of 30-50 % and 20-30 %, respectively, of the fine which would otherwise be imposed on them

An inspection was carried out at the premises of Zeon Chemical Europe on 27 and 28 March 2003.

WRITTEN PROCEDURE

Statement of Objections and replies

On 3 May 2007 the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections, which was addressed to 4 legal entities (Bayer AG, Zeon Corporation, Zeon Europe GmbH and Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd). In the Statement of Objections, the Commission took the preliminary view that the undertakings concerned had participated in a single complex and continuous infringement of Article 81(1) EC between 9 October 2000 and 30 September 2003 and announced its intention to adopt an infringement decision and to impose fines.

The Parties were granted a deadline of four weeks to reply to the Statement of Objections following receipt of a DVD containing the main part of the Commission's file. All Parties replied in due time.

Access to file

Access to file was granted by way of a DVD sent to the parties and by access to certain documents at the Commission’s premises.

ORAL PROCEDURE

Oral Hearing

The parties did not request the opportunity to develop their arguments at an oral hearing.

Prior to the issuance of the Statement of Objections Zeon Corporation addressed a request under Article 9 of the Hearing Officers Mandate (2) that certain individual names of its employees should not be divulged. By letter dated 17 November 2006 I informed Zeon that in view of the proper exercise of right to be heard its request could only be partially accepted. Zeon did not pursue this issue further.

THE DRAFT DECISION

In my opinion the draft Decision relates only to objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity to make known their views.

I consider that the parties right be right to be heard has been respected in this case for all participants to the proceedings.

Brussels, 11 January 2008.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

(1)  OJ C 45/3, 19.2.2002.

1

(2)  Commission decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings, OJ L 162/21, 19.6.2001.

2

---

| 15.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/7

---

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DECISION

of 23.1.2008

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38628 — Nitrile Butadiene Rubber)

(notified under document number C(2008) 282)

(Only the English and German texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 86/06

1.   INTRODUCTION

| (1) | On 23 January 2008, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003, 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. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 January 2008, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) 1/2003, 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.

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

| (2) | This case was opened on the basis of an immunity application. Subsequently, on 31 January, another company, Bayer, applied for immunity from fines or, in the alternative, reduction of fines. On 27 and 28 March 2003, inspections were organised at the premises of Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd (one of the legal entities within the Zeon group). On 27 August 2003, Zeon applied for reductions of fines under the Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

This case was opened on the basis of an immunity application. Subsequently, on 31 January, another company, Bayer, applied for immunity from fines or, in the alternative, reduction of fines. On 27 and 28 March 2003, inspections were organised at the premises of Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd (one of the legal entities within the Zeon group). On 27 August 2003, Zeon applied for reductions of fines under the Leniency Notice.

| (3) | Several written requests for information were addressed to the undertakings involved in the anti-competitive arrangements. Request for information were further addressed to various undertakings processing Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (hereinafter ‘NBR’). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Several written requests for information were addressed to the undertakings involved in the anti-competitive arrangements. Request for information were further addressed to various undertakings processing Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (hereinafter ‘NBR’).

| (4) | On 29 March 2007, the Commission informed Bayer in writing of its intention to grant Bayer a reduction of 30-50 % of the fine, pursuant to the Leniency Notice. On the same date, 29 March 2007, Zeon was informed in writing of the intention of the Commission to grant it a reduction of 20-30 % of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 29 March 2007, the Commission informed Bayer in writing of its intention to grant Bayer a reduction of 30-50 % of the fine, pursuant to the Leniency Notice. On the same date, 29 March 2007, Zeon was informed in writing of the intention of the Commission to grant it a reduction of 20-30 % of the fine.

| (5) | The Statement of Objections was adopted on 3 May 2007 and notified to all the parties by 4 May 2007. The addressees waived their right to be heard, hence, no Oral Hearing was held. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Statement of Objections was adopted on 3 May 2007 and notified to all the parties by 4 May 2007. The addressees waived their right to be heard, hence, no Oral Hearing was held.

| (6) | The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 30 November 2007 and 18 January 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 30 November 2007 and 18 January 2008.

2.2.   Summary of the infringement

| (7) | The product concerned, NBR, is a type of synthetic rubber used mainly in the automotive industry for fuel and oil handling hoses, seals, o-rings and water handling applications. Other industrial uses are rolling covers, hydraulic hoses, conveyor belting, and seals for all kinds of plumbing. The estimated EEA market value for NBR in 2001 was approximately € 145 million. The two undertakings involved in the infringement had an estimated market share of about 55 %. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The product concerned, NBR, is a type of synthetic rubber used mainly in the automotive industry for fuel and oil handling hoses, seals, o-rings and water handling applications. Other industrial uses are rolling covers, hydraulic hoses, conveyor belting, and seals for all kinds of plumbing. The estimated EEA market value for NBR in 2001 was approximately € 145 million. The two undertakings involved in the infringement had an estimated market share of about 55 %.

| (8) | The Decision concludes that Bayer and Zeon operated between 9 October 2000 and 30 September 2002 a cartel with a view to increasing and/or maintaining prices for NBR in the EEA market, and also exchanged information to facilitate and/or monitor the implementation of the illicit arrangements. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Decision concludes that Bayer and Zeon operated between 9 October 2000 and 30 September 2002 a cartel with a view to increasing and/or maintaining prices for NBR in the EEA market, and also exchanged information to facilitate and/or monitor the implementation of the illicit arrangements.

| (9) | The involved undertakings organised two successful rounds of price increases, another attempt to raise prices in a coordinated manner failed. It is further demonstrated that the competitors maintained regular contacts aimed at agreeing on the level of prices and maximizing the chances for price increases by reassuring each other that announced price increases would be effectively carried out. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The involved undertakings organised two successful rounds of price increases, another attempt to raise prices in a coordinated manner failed. It is further demonstrated that the competitors maintained regular contacts aimed at agreeing on the level of prices and maximizing the chances for price increases by reassuring each other that announced price increases would be effectively carried out.

| (10) | There were 9 meetings between representatives of Bayer and Zeon, in all of which they discussed and agreed prices and/or exchanged sensitive commercial information. Moreover, several preparatory of follow-up contacts over telephone occurred. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

There were 9 meetings between representatives of Bayer and Zeon, in all of which they discussed and agreed prices and/or exchanged sensitive commercial information. Moreover, several preparatory of follow-up contacts over telephone occurred.

| (11) | The Decision further concludes that it was established that the arrangements on price increases, although not always completely successful, were generally implemented and that their implementation was monitored by the participants in this cartel. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Decision further concludes that it was established that the arrangements on price increases, although not always completely successful, were generally implemented and that their implementation was monitored by the participants in this cartel.

2.3.   Addressees

| (12) | The Decision is addressed to the following legal entities, which belong to the two participating undertakings (Bayer and Zeon):






  (a) | Bayer AG; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(12)

The Decision is addressed to the following legal entities, which belong to the two participating undertakings (Bayer and Zeon):

(a)

Bayer AG;

| (b) | Zeon Corporation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Zeon Corporation;

| (c) | Zeon Europe GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Zeon Europe GmbH;

| (d) | Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd.

| (13) | Liability of the ultimate parent company within the Zeon group is established both because of its direct participation in four of the cartel meetings and on the basis of the presumption of the exercise of decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries, which is reinforced by several additional indicia. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Liability of the ultimate parent company within the Zeon group is established both because of its direct participation in four of the cartel meetings and on the basis of the presumption of the exercise of decisive influence over its wholly-owned subsidiaries, which is reinforced by several additional indicia.

2.4.   Remedies

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

| (14) | The basic amount of the fine is determined as a proportion of the value of the sales of the relevant product made by each undertaking in the relevant geographic area during the last full business year of the infringement (‘variable amount’), multiplied by the number of years of infringement, plus an additional amount, (‘entry fee’), also calculated as a proportion of the value of sales, which is meant to enhance deterrence in respect of horizontal price fixing agreements. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The basic amount of the fine is determined as a proportion of the value of the sales of the relevant product made by each undertaking in the relevant geographic area during the last full business year of the infringement (‘variable amount’), multiplied by the number of years of infringement, plus an additional amount, (‘entry fee’), also calculated as a proportion of the value of sales, which is meant to enhance deterrence in respect of horizontal price fixing agreements.

| (15) | Having considered different factors, in particular the nature, the combined market share and the geographic scope of the infringement, the Decision applies in this case both the variable amount and the entry fee of 16 %. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Having considered different factors, in particular the nature, the combined market share and the geographic scope of the infringement, the Decision applies in this case both the variable amount and the entry fee of 16 %.

| (16) | Taking into account that the infringement lasted for almost 2 years, the variable amount is multiplied by 2. However, for the reasons explained in the section on Leniency, the duration was reduced to 0,5 for Zeon. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Taking into account that the infringement lasted for almost 2 years, the variable amount is multiplied by 2. However, for the reasons explained in the section on Leniency, the duration was reduced to 0,5 for Zeon.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

2.4.2.1.   Aggravating circumstances: recidivism

| (17) | At the time the infringement took place, Bayer had already been the addressee of a previous Commission decision concerning cartel activities. The Decision concludes that this justifies an increase of 50 % in the basic amount imposed on Bayer. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

At the time the infringement took place, Bayer had already been the addressee of a previous Commission decision concerning cartel activities. The Decision concludes that this justifies an increase of 50 % in the basic amount imposed on Bayer.

2.4.2.2.   Mitigating circumstances

| (18) | No attenuating circumstances have been found nor claimed. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

No attenuating circumstances have been found nor claimed.

2.4.2.3.   Specific increase for deterrence

| (19) | Taking into account the need to ensure that fines have a sufficiently deterrent effect, and in consideration of the large size of Bayer's turnover beyond the sales of goods or services to which the infringement relates, the Decision increases the fine to be imposed to this undertaking by 10 %. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Taking into account the need to ensure that fines have a sufficiently deterrent effect, and in consideration of the large size of Bayer's turnover beyond the sales of goods or services to which the infringement relates, the Decision increases the fine to be imposed to this undertaking by 10 %.

2.4.3.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| (20) | The 10 % worldwide turnover limit provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 is not attained in respect of the fine to be imposed on any of the undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The 10 % worldwide turnover limit provided for in Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 is not attained in respect of the fine to be imposed on any of the undertakings.

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

| (21) | As mentioned in paragraph (2) above, both Bayer and Zeon filed applications for a reduction of fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

As mentioned in paragraph (2) above, both Bayer and Zeon filed applications for a reduction of fines under the 2002 Leniency Notice.

| (22) | The Decision grants a reduction of the fine of 30 % for Bayer and 20 % for Zeon. These percentages of reduction take into account the extent to which the evidence submitted by each company represented added value, as well as the time at which this evidence was submitted. Furthermore, since Zeon was the first to have disclosed the cartel period from October 2000 to May 2002, this period was not taken in consideration in the calculation of the fine for Zeon (see paragraph (16) above). |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The Decision grants a reduction of the fine of 30 % for Bayer and 20 % for Zeon. These percentages of reduction take into account the extent to which the evidence submitted by each company represented added value, as well as the time at which this evidence was submitted. Furthermore, since Zeon was the first to have disclosed the cartel period from October 2000 to May 2002, this period was not taken in consideration in the calculation of the fine for Zeon (see paragraph (16) above).

3.   DECISION

| (23) | The following undertakings have infringed Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement covering the whole of the EEA, by which they agreed and coordinated price increases, reassured each other on their intentions to apply price increases and exchanged information on pricing strategy in the market for Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber from 9 October 2000 to 30 September 2002.






  (a) | Bayer AG; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(23)

The following undertakings have infringed Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement covering the whole of the EEA, by which they agreed and coordinated price increases, reassured each other on their intentions to apply price increases and exchanged information on pricing strategy in the market for Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber from 9 October 2000 to 30 September 2002.

(a)

Bayer AG;

| (b) | Zeon Corporation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Zeon Corporation;

| (c) | Zeon Europe GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Zeon Europe GmbH;

| (d) | Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd.

| (24) | For the infringements referred to in Article 1, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Bayer AG: EUR 28 870 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(24)

For the infringements referred to in Article 1, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Bayer AG: EUR 28 870 000;

| (b) | Zeon Corporation, Zeon Europe GmbH and Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd., jointly and severally: EUR 5 360 000. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Zeon Corporation, Zeon Europe GmbH and Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd., jointly and severally: EUR 5 360 000.

| (25) | The undertakings listed above are ordered to immediately bring to an end the infringement insofar as they have not already done so and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in paragraph (21) and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The undertakings listed above are ordered to immediately bring to an end the infringement insofar as they have not already done so and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in paragraph (21) and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect.

---

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

| 15.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/11

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5410 — ForFarmers/Cefetra)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 86/07

| 1. | On 3 April 2009, 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 ForFarmers BV (‘ForFarmers’, Netherlands), controlled by Coöperatie FromFarmers U.A. (Netherlands), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Cefetra BV (‘Cefetra’, Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 3 April 2009, 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 ForFarmers BV (‘ForFarmers’, Netherlands), controlled by Coöperatie FromFarmers U.A. (Netherlands), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Cefetra BV (‘Cefetra’, Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.

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






  — | for ForFarmers: manufacturing and sale of animal feed, fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and seed stock to the agricultural sector in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, provision of services to livestock owners, farmers and owners of agricultural machines in relation to technical management, environmental authorizations, milk quotas and other agricultural rights, and slaughtering, processing and sale of poultry in Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for ForFarmers: manufacturing and sale of animal feed, fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and seed stock to the agricultural sector in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, provision of services to livestock owners, farmers and owners of agricultural machines in relation to technical management, environmental authorizations, milk quotas and other agricultural rights, and slaughtering, processing and sale of poultry in Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,

| — | for Cefetra: supply of raw materials to the feed, food and fuel industries, including the animal feed industry, the foodstuffs industry, the crush and starch industry and the bio-fuel sectors. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Cefetra: supply of raw materials to the feed, food and fuel industries, including the animal feed industry, the foodstuffs industry, the crush and starch industry and the bio-fuel sectors.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5410 — ForFarmers/Cefetra, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5410 — ForFarmers/Cefetra, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

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

---