# Official Journal C 168/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.168.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 168 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5221 July 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.168.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 168

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5221 July 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 168/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2009/C 168/02 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 20 January 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (1) — Rapporteur: Luxembourg | 2 |
| 2009/C 168/03 | Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (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) | 3 |
| 2009/C 168/04 | Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 23 January 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (2) — Rapporteur: Luxembourg | 5 |
| 2009/C 168/05 | Summary of Commission Decision of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses) (
  1
  ) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 168/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2009/C 168/02

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 20 January 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (1) — Rapporteur: Luxembourg

2

2009/C 168/03

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (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)

3

2009/C 168/04

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 23 January 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (2) — Rapporteur: Luxembourg

5

2009/C 168/05

Summary of Commission Decision of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses) (
  1
  )

1

6

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Food Safety Authority |
| 2009/C 168/06 | Call for expressions of interest for the position of member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority | 9 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 168/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5588 — GM/Delphi Steering II) (
  1
  ) | 18 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 168/08 | Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Request made by a Member State | 19 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Food Safety Authority

2009/C 168/06

Call for expressions of interest for the position of member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority

9

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 168/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5588 — GM/Delphi Steering II) (
  1
  )

1

18

OTHER ACTS

Commission

2009/C 168/08

Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — Request made by a Member State

19

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 July 2009

2009/C 168/01

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4217 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4462 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86010 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0023 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5198 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,838 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,90 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7004 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2980 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2390 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1476 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7510 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5702 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0184 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1714 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0489 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 772,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2989 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7118 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3352 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 202,88 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0350 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,141 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,9800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,359 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7122 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7878 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,5330 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4217

JPY

Japanese yen

134,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4462

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86010

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0023

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5198

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,838

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,90

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7004

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2980

RON

Romanian leu

4,2390

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1476

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7510

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5702

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0184

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1714

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0489

KRW

South Korean won

1 772,41

ZAR

South African rand

11,2989

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7118

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3352

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 202,88

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0350

PHP

Philippine peso

68,141

RUB

Russian rouble

43,9800

THB

Thai baht

48,359

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7122

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7878

INR

Indian rupee

68,5330

---

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

---

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/2

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 20 January 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (1)

Rapporteur: Luxembourg

2009/C 168/02

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

1.

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

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment that the measures agreed and taken pursuant to Memorandum of 1 April 1986 and follow up agreements are to be considered as a coherent set of measures of the arrangements agreed at both the global and the European level. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment that the measures agreed and taken pursuant to Memorandum of 1 April 1986 and follow up agreements are to be considered as a coherent set of measures of the arrangements agreed at both the global and the European level.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment that the agreement and/or concerted practices between the producers of marine hoses were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between EU Member States and between contracting parties of the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment that the agreement and/or concerted practices between the producers of marine hoses were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between EU Member States and between contracting parties of the EEA.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that, despite the limited cartel activities in 1997-1999, there is indeed a single, materially same, infringement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that, despite the limited cartel activities in 1997-1999, there is indeed a single, materially same, infringement.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment that the infringement is to be seen as single and continuous in light of the evolution of the cartel over the period from 1986-2007 (with a period of limited, minor cartel activities in 1997-1999). |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment that the infringement is to be seen as single and continuous in light of the evolution of the cartel over the period from 1986-2007 (with a period of limited, minor cartel activities in 1997-1999).

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees that Bridgestone (DOM that cannot be held liable for its role) and Parker/ITR within the group of suppliers played the role of leader and that this justifies an increase in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on these undertakings for leadership. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees that Bridgestone (DOM that cannot be held liable for its role) and Parker/ITR within the group of suppliers played the role of leader and that this justifies an increase in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on these undertakings for leadership.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the applications made under the 2006 Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the applications made under the 2006 Leniency Notice.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned.

| 9. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the publication of the Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the publication of the Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

---

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/3

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses

(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 168/03

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

INTRODUCTION

Marine hoses are used to load oil and other petroleum products from offshore facilities onto vessels and offload them back to offshore facilities. In December 2006 the Commission received an immunity application from a marine hoses manufacturer and carried out surprise inspections at the premises of several other manufacturers and a consultancy agency, and conducted a search of a private home in May 2007. The inspections were followed by leniency applications. On the basis of the collected information, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that six groups of undertakings had participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement for different periods between 1 April 1986 and 2 May 2007 by (i) allocating tenders and customers; (ii) fixing prices, quotas and sales conditions; and (iii) exchanging sensitive information with regard to marine hoses.

Statement of Objections and Time to Reply

On 29 April 2008, the Commission notified a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) to the following parties: Bridgestone Industrial Ltd and its ultimate parent company Bridgestone Corporation (‘Bridgestone’); Yokohama Rubber Company Ltd (‘Yokohama’); Dunlop Oil and Marine Ltd (‘DOM’) and its parent companies ContiTech AG (‘ContiTech’) and Continental AG (‘Continental’); Trelleborg Industrie SAS and its parent company Trelleborg AB (‘Trelleborg’); Parker ITR Sri (‘Parker ITR’) and its parent company Parker Hannifin Corporation (‘Parker Hannifin’) and Manuli Rubber Industries SpA (‘Manuli’).

The addressees of the SO were originally granted a deadline of six weeks to reply to the SO starting the day after they were informed that the DVD was available for collection. Upon reasoned requests, I granted extensions of two weeks to Bridgestone, Parker and Manuli and of eight days to DOM.

Access to the file

The parties were given access to the file via a DVD which they received between 30 April and 5 May 2008. Oral statements made by the immunity applicant and the leniency applicants were made accessible at the Commission's premises.

On 18 June 2008, Bridgestone addressed a letter to me in connection with certain documents referred to in the SO. The SO referred to two floppy discs found at the premises of a consultancy agency containing ‘several dozens of communications’ (faxes) between cartel members about tender allocations. The case file itself, however, contained only a screenshot of a list and some samples of the faxes that were on the list. In Bridgestone's view, this impaired their rights of defence. After examining the file, I took the view that the screenshot could not be used as ‘general evidence’ against the parties, since the individual faxes on the list (with some exceptions) were not made accessible and the parties were not provided with the opportunity to comment on each of them. In the draft Decision, the Commission relies only on the faxes in the file that were made accessible to the parties.

No other issues regarding access to file were brought to my attention.

Oral Hearing

The Oral Hearing was held on 23 July 2008 and was attended by the representatives of Yokohama, Manuli, Bridgestone, Parker and Trelleborg. DOM and its parent companies waived their right to an oral hearing.

DRAFT DECISION

In the draft Decision, the Commission has found that although the cartel underwent a period of limited activities between 13 May 1997 and 11 June 1999 (between 13 May 1997 and 21 June 1999 for Trelleborg and between 13 May 1997 and 9 May 2000 for Manuli), there was a clear continuity of the cartel before and after these dates and, thus, the infringement is to be considered as single and continuous. The Commission has held the addressees liable for the period of limited activity, but this period has not been taken into account for the purpose of determining the fines.

The Commission has also found that, contrary to the findings of the SO, Manuli's participation at the cartel before 3 September 1996 may have been prescribed. The Commission has decided in its discretion not to impose a fine on Manuli for the period ending on 1 August 1992. Furthermore, the Commission has concluded that the theory of economic succession does not apply to DOM and, therefore, the company has been held liable only as of the date when it acquired the marine hoses business assets.

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.

CONCLUSION

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

Brussels, 22 January 2009.

Karen WILLIAMS

---

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 23 January 2009 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses (2)

Rapporteur: Luxembourg

2009/C 168/04

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

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts 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 amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2006 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2006 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

| 5. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

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

---

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/6

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 28 January 2009

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

(Case COMP/39.406 — Marine Hoses)

(Only the English and German texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 168/05

I.   INTRODUCTION

| 1. | On 28 January 2009, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, 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 28 January 2009, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, 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. | A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Directorate-General for Competition’s website at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html |
| --- | --- |

2.

A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the Directorate-General for Competition’s website at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/cases/cases.html

| 3. | The Decision was addressed to following legal entities which belong to six undertakings: Bridgestone Corporation and Bridgestone Industrial Ltd; the Yokohama Rubber Company Limited; Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited, ContiTech AG, and Continental AG; Trelleborg Industrie SAS and Trelleborg AB, Parker ITR Srl and Parker Hannifin Corporation; Manuli Rubber Industries SpA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Decision was addressed to following legal entities which belong to six undertakings: Bridgestone Corporation and Bridgestone Industrial Ltd; the Yokohama Rubber Company Limited; Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited, ContiTech AG, and Continental AG; Trelleborg Industrie SAS and Trelleborg AB, Parker ITR Srl and Parker Hannifin Corporation; Manuli Rubber Industries SpA.

II.   THE MARINE HOSES INDUSTRY

| 4. | The product to which the infringement relates is marine hoses. Marine hoses are used to load sweet or processed crude oil and other petroleum products from offshore facilities (for example buoys, floating production storage and offloading systems) onto vessels and to offload them back to offshore or onshore facilities (for example buoys or jetties). |
| --- | --- |

4.

The product to which the infringement relates is marine hoses. Marine hoses are used to load sweet or processed crude oil and other petroleum products from offshore facilities (for example buoys, floating production storage and offloading systems) onto vessels and to offload them back to offshore or onshore facilities (for example buoys or jetties).

III.   PROCEDURE

| 5. | Yokohama applied for immunity under the Commission’s 2006 Leniency Notice (1). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Yokohama applied for immunity under the Commission’s 2006 Leniency Notice (1).

| 6. | On 2 May 2007, the Commission launched surprise inspections at the premises of Dunlop Oil & Marine, Trelleborg, Parker ITR, Manuli and PW Consulting and at the private home of the owner/manager of the latter. In the following months a series of requests for information under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 were sent to the parties involved and other undertakings that could provide information. |
| --- | --- |

6.

On 2 May 2007, the Commission launched surprise inspections at the premises of Dunlop Oil & Marine, Trelleborg, Parker ITR, Manuli and PW Consulting and at the private home of the owner/manager of the latter. In the following months a series of requests for information under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 were sent to the parties involved and other undertakings that could provide information.

| 7. | On [...] Manuli made an application for leniency under the Leniency Notice. On [...] Parker ITR made an application under the Leniency Notice which it subsequently completed. Finally, on [...], Bridgestone made an application under the Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

7.

On [...] Manuli made an application for leniency under the Leniency Notice. On [...] Parker ITR made an application under the Leniency Notice which it subsequently completed. Finally, on [...], Bridgestone made an application under the Leniency Notice.

| 8. | On 28 April 2008, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections. All parties replied to the Statement of Objections before the deadline. All parties with the exception of Dunlop Oil & Marine, ContiTech AG, and Continental AG asked to be heard at an Oral Hearing which was subsequently held on 23 July 2008. |
| --- | --- |

8.

On 28 April 2008, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections. All parties replied to the Statement of Objections before the deadline. All parties with the exception of Dunlop Oil & Marine, ContiTech AG, and Continental AG asked to be heard at an Oral Hearing which was subsequently held on 23 July 2008.

IV.   FUNCTIONING OF THE CARTEL

| 9. | The investigation of the Commission uncovered evidence showing that the addressees of this Decision participated during the relevant period in anticompetitive arrangements which consisted of:






  (a) | allocating tenders; |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

The investigation of the Commission uncovered evidence showing that the addressees of this Decision participated during the relevant period in anticompetitive arrangements which consisted of:

(a)

allocating tenders;

| (b) | fixing prices; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

fixing prices;

| (c) | fixing quotas; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

fixing quotas;

| (d) | fixing sales conditions; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

fixing sales conditions;

| (e) | geographic market sharing; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

geographic market sharing;

| (f) | exchanging sensitive information on prices, sales volumes and procurement tenders. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

exchanging sensitive information on prices, sales volumes and procurement tenders.

| 10. | Evidence uncovered shows that at least since 1986 members of the marine hose cartel ran a scheme to allocate among themselves the tenders issued by their customers. Under the scheme, a member of the cartel who obtained a customer inquiry would report it to the cartel coordinator, who would in turn allocate the customer to a ‘champion’, which means the cartel member who was supposed to win the tender. In order to ensure that the tender was allocated to the ‘champion’ in the tendering procedure, the cartel members adopted a reference price list and agreed on the prices that each of them should quote so that all bids would be above the price quoted by the champion. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Evidence uncovered shows that at least since 1986 members of the marine hose cartel ran a scheme to allocate among themselves the tenders issued by their customers. Under the scheme, a member of the cartel who obtained a customer inquiry would report it to the cartel coordinator, who would in turn allocate the customer to a ‘champion’, which means the cartel member who was supposed to win the tender. In order to ensure that the tender was allocated to the ‘champion’ in the tendering procedure, the cartel members adopted a reference price list and agreed on the prices that each of them should quote so that all bids would be above the price quoted by the champion.

| 11. | Moreover, evidence shows that the cartel members agreed to several measures to facilitate this process. They agreed to reference prices, quotas and sales conditions as well as a system of penalties to compensate cartel members who lost a tender which the cartel had allocated to them but which was won by other cartel members. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Moreover, evidence shows that the cartel members agreed to several measures to facilitate this process. They agreed to reference prices, quotas and sales conditions as well as a system of penalties to compensate cartel members who lost a tender which the cartel had allocated to them but which was won by other cartel members.

V.   REMEDIES

1.   Basic amount of the fine

| 12. | According to the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2), in determining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed, the Commission starts from the value of the undertaking's sales of the goods or services to which the infringement relates in the relevant geographic area within the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

12.

According to the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2), in determining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed, the Commission starts from the value of the undertaking's sales of the goods or services to which the infringement relates in the relevant geographic area within the EEA.

| 13. | In order to reflect both the aggregate size of the relevant sales within the EEA and the relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement, the Commission calculates the value of sales for the purpose of setting the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on each undertaking concerned by applying the worldwide market share of each undertaking to the aggregate sales within the EEA of the undertakings concerned, in line with Point 18 of the Guidelines on fines. |
| --- | --- |

13.

In order to reflect both the aggregate size of the relevant sales within the EEA and the relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement, the Commission calculates the value of sales for the purpose of setting the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on each undertaking concerned by applying the worldwide market share of each undertaking to the aggregate sales within the EEA of the undertakings concerned, in line with Point 18 of the Guidelines on fines.

| 14. | The criteria that were considered to determine the percentage of the undertakings’ sales were the nature of the infringement, the joint market share of the cartel members, the geographic scope of the cartel and the implementation of the cartel. On this basis the percentage for the variable amount and the additional amount (‘entry fee’) was set. |
| --- | --- |

14.

The criteria that were considered to determine the percentage of the undertakings’ sales were the nature of the infringement, the joint market share of the cartel members, the geographic scope of the cartel and the implementation of the cartel. On this basis the percentage for the variable amount and the additional amount (‘entry fee’) was set.

| 15. | The cartel lasted for more than 19 years so that the variable amount was multiplied by up to 19. While the anti-competitive agreement lasted more than 21 years, a period of 2 years of limited activity of the cartel was excluded for the purpose of calculating fines. |
| --- | --- |

15.

The cartel lasted for more than 19 years so that the variable amount was multiplied by up to 19. While the anti-competitive agreement lasted more than 21 years, a period of 2 years of limited activity of the cartel was excluded for the purpose of calculating fines.

2.   Adjustments of the basic amount

| 16. | There were no attenuating circumstances and no other aggravating circumstances (such as recidivism) than leadership. Neither was a specific increase for deterrence deemed to be necessary. The fines of two undertakings were increased for leadership. |
| --- | --- |

16.

There were no attenuating circumstances and no other aggravating circumstances (such as recidivism) than leadership. Neither was a specific increase for deterrence deemed to be necessary. The fines of two undertakings were increased for leadership.

3.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| 17. | The final individual amounts of the fines calculated prior to the application of the Leniency Notice were below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of the addressed undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The final individual amounts of the fines calculated prior to the application of the Leniency Notice were below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of the addressed undertakings.

4.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice: immunity and reduction of fines

| 18. | Yokohama was the first undertaking to submit information and evidence which enabled the Commission to carry out a targeted inspection in connection with the alleged cartel. The fine to be imposed on Yokohama was reduced by 100 %. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Yokohama was the first undertaking to submit information and evidence which enabled the Commission to carry out a targeted inspection in connection with the alleged cartel. The fine to be imposed on Yokohama was reduced by 100 %.

| 19. | Manuli was granted a 30 % reduction. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Manuli was granted a 30 % reduction.

| 20. | Parker ITR's and Bridgestone's contributions could not be qualified as being of ‘significant added value’. Therefore the Commission did not grant these two companies a reduction of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Parker ITR's and Bridgestone's contributions could not be qualified as being of ‘significant added value’. Therefore the Commission did not grant these two companies a reduction of the fine.

VI.   DECISION

| 21. | The addressees of the Decision and the duration of their involvement were as follows:
  (a)   Bridgestone Corporation: from 1 April 1986 until 2 May 2007;
  (b)   Bridgestone Industrial Ltd: from 19 December 1989 until 2 May 2007;
  (c)   The Yokohama Rubber Company Limited: from 1 April 1986 until 1 June 2006;
  (d)   Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited: from 12 December 1997 until 2 May 2007;
  (e)   ContiTech AG: from 28 July 2000 until 2 May 2007;
  (f)   Continental AG: from 9 March 2005 until 2 May 2007;
  (g)   Trelleborg Industrie SAS: from 1 April 1986 until 2 May 2007;
  (h)   Trelleborg AB: from 28 March 1996 until 2 May 2007;
  (i)   Parker ITR Srl: from 1 April 1986 until 2 May 2007;
  (j)   Parker Hannifin Corporation: from 31 January 2002 until 2 May 2007; and
  (k)   Manuli Rubber Industries SpA: from 1 April 1986 until 1 August 1992 and from 3 September 1996 until 2 May 2007. |
| --- | --- |

21.

The addressees of the Decision and the duration of their involvement were as follows:

(a)   Bridgestone Corporation: from 1 April 1986 until 2 May 2007;

(b)   Bridgestone Industrial Ltd: from 19 December 1989 until 2 May 2007;

(c)   The Yokohama Rubber Company Limited: from 1 April 1986 until 1 June 2006;

(d)   Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited: from 12 December 1997 until 2 May 2007;

(e)   ContiTech AG: from 28 July 2000 until 2 May 2007;

(f)   Continental AG: from 9 March 2005 until 2 May 2007;

(g)   Trelleborg Industrie SAS: from 1 April 1986 until 2 May 2007;

(h)   Trelleborg AB: from 28 March 1996 until 2 May 2007;

(i)   Parker ITR Srl: from 1 April 1986 until 2 May 2007;

(j)   Parker Hannifin Corporation: from 31 January 2002 until 2 May 2007; and

(k)   Manuli Rubber Industries SpA: from 1 April 1986 until 1 August 1992 and from 3 September 1996 until 2 May 2007.

| 22. | For the above-mentioned infringements, the following fines were imposed:
  (a)   Bridgestone Corporation: EUR 58 500 000
  of which jointly and severally with Bridgestone Industrial Limited for EUR 48 100 000;
  (b)   The Yokohama Rubber Company Limited: EUR 0;
  (c)   Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd: EUR 18 000 000
  of which jointly and severally with ContiTech AG for EUR 16 000 000,
  of which jointly and severally with Continental AG for EUR 7 100 000;
  (d)   Trelleborg Industrie SAS: EUR 24 500 000
  of which jointly and severally with Trelleborg AB for EUR 12 200 000;
  (e)   Parker ITR Srl: EUR 25 610 000
  of which jointly and severally with Parker Hannifin Corporation for EUR 8 320 000;
  (f)   Manuli Rubber Industries SpA: EUR 4 900 000. |
| --- | --- |

22.

For the above-mentioned infringements, the following fines were imposed:

(a)   Bridgestone Corporation: EUR 58 500 000

of which jointly and severally with Bridgestone Industrial Limited for EUR 48 100 000;

(b)   The Yokohama Rubber Company Limited: EUR 0;

(c)   Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd: EUR 18 000 000

of which jointly and severally with ContiTech AG for EUR 16 000 000,

of which jointly and severally with Continental AG for EUR 7 100 000;

(d)   Trelleborg Industrie SAS: EUR 24 500 000

of which jointly and severally with Trelleborg AB for EUR 12 200 000;

(e)   Parker ITR Srl: EUR 25 610 000

of which jointly and severally with Parker Hannifin Corporation for EUR 8 320 000;

(f)   Manuli Rubber Industries SpA: EUR 4 900 000.

---

(1)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17).

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2).

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Food Safety Authority

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/9

---

Call for expressions of interest for the position of member of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority

2009/C 168/06

Applications are invited for the positions of 7 out of 14 members of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1). The Authority is located in Parma, Italy.

THE EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the keystone of European Union risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. The Authority was established to provide scientific advice and support for Community legislation and policies in all fields that may have a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety, as well as closely associated questions in the field of animal health and welfare and plant health. It provides independent information on these matters and communicates on risks. Its mission also includes provision of scientific advice on nutrition, particularly in relation to Community legislation, and GMOs, including also new food technologies. The Authority has rapidly earned a reputation with its stakeholders as the accepted point of reference by virtue of its independence, the scientific quality of its opinions and public information, the transparency of its procedures and its diligence in performing its tasks. In addition to having its own specialist personnel, the Authority is supported by networks of competent organisations in the EU.

Legal background

In accordance with Article 25 of the above-mentioned Regulation, ‘the members of the Board shall be appointed in such a way as to secure the highest standards of competence, a broad range of relevant expertise and, consistent with these, the broadest possible geographic distribution within the Union’. In addition, four of the members of the Management Board ‘shall have their background in organisations representing consumers and other interests in the food chain’.

Furthermore, Recital 40 of the aforementioned Regulation stipulates that ‘Cooperation with Member States is also indispensable’ and Recital 41 states that ‘the Management Board should be appointed in such a way as to secure the highest standard of competence, a broad range of relevant expertise, for instance in management and in public administration, and the broadest possible geographic distribution within the Union. This should be facilitated by a rotation of the different countries of origin of the members of the Management Board without any post being reserved for nationals of any specific Member State.’

Role and operation of the Management Board

The responsibilities of the Management Board include, in particular:

| — | general monitoring of the work of the Authority to ensure that it carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it in accordance with its mandate and within a culture of independence and transparency, |
| --- | --- |

—

general monitoring of the work of the Authority to ensure that it carries out its mission and performs the tasks assigned to it in accordance with its mandate and within a culture of independence and transparency,

| — | the appointment of the Executive Director on the basis of the list drawn up by the Commission, and, if necessary, his or her dismissal, |
| --- | --- |

—

the appointment of the Executive Director on the basis of the list drawn up by the Commission, and, if necessary, his or her dismissal,

| — | the appointment of the members of the Scientific Committee and Panels which are responsible for providing the scientific opinions of the Authority, |
| --- | --- |

—

the appointment of the members of the Scientific Committee and Panels which are responsible for providing the scientific opinions of the Authority,

| — | the adoption of annual and multi-annual programmes of work of the Authority and the general report of annual activities, |
| --- | --- |

—

the adoption of annual and multi-annual programmes of work of the Authority and the general report of annual activities,

| — | the adoption of the Authority’s internal rules and financial regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the adoption of the Authority’s internal rules and financial regulation.

The Board operates by formal meetings, private sessions, informal contacts between members and correspondence. EFSA papers, Board correspondence and private or informal sessions are held in English. Formal sessions include interpretation where Members need this. The Board meets four to six times per year, predominantly in Parma but also in other EU locations where appropriate.

Composition of the Management Board

The Management Board is composed of 14 members appointed by the Council in consultation with the European Parliament, plus a representative of the Commission, as stated in Article 25 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (2). The term of office for seven members of the current Management Board expires on 30 June 2010, in accordance with Council Decision 2006/478/EC of 19 June 2006 (3). The term of office of the other seven members will end on 30 June 2012.

Current membership of the Board can be seen on EFSA’s website http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/AboutEfsa/WhoWeAre/ManagementBoard/efsa_locale-1178620753812_Members.htm

This publication concerns applications for the positions of those seven members of the Management Board whose term expires on 30 June 2010.

Qualifications for the position

The members of the Management Board need the competence and collective expertise necessary to guide the Authority on matters relating to its mission, particularly to ensure:

| 1. | efficient delivery of scientific advice and support to meet the European Community’s needs in relation to its legislation and policies and its work in the public interest; |
| --- | --- |

1.

efficient delivery of scientific advice and support to meet the European Community’s needs in relation to its legislation and policies and its work in the public interest;

| 2. | application of sound principles of management and public administration (including financial aspects); |
| --- | --- |

2.

application of sound principles of management and public administration (including financial aspects);

| 3. | its functioning is guided by the principles of integrity, independence, transparency, ethical practices and high scientific quality while maintaining the indispensable cooperation with Member States; |
| --- | --- |

3.

its functioning is guided by the principles of integrity, independence, transparency, ethical practices and high scientific quality while maintaining the indispensable cooperation with Member States;

| 4. | communication and information to the public on scientific issues; |
| --- | --- |

4.

communication and information to the public on scientific issues;

| 5. | the creation and maintenance of a reputation for a high level of excellence, objectivity and reliability with its stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

5.

the creation and maintenance of a reputation for a high level of excellence, objectivity and reliability with its stakeholders;

| 6. | promotion of the necessary coherence between risk assessment, risk management and risk communication functions. |
| --- | --- |

6.

promotion of the necessary coherence between risk assessment, risk management and risk communication functions.

Candidates will need to demonstrate that they can contribute effectively to one or more of the areas listed above. They must have had at least 15 years of experience in one or more of these areas, including at least five years at a senior level. Candidates shall have at least five years of experience gained from work in connection with food and feed safety or other areas related to the Authority’s mission, notably in the field of animal health and welfare, protection of the environment (4), plant health and nutrition. On the basis of their experience, candidates shall demonstrate their ability to operate in a multilingual, multicultural and multidisciplinary environment. Candidates will be selected on the basis of comparative merits in relation to the above-mentioned criteria and, consistent with these, of the broadest possible geographic distribution within the Union.

Independence and declarations of commitment and interest

Board members will be nominated in a personal capacity. They will be required to make a declaration of commitment to act independently in the public interest and to make a declaration in relation to interests which might be considered prejudicial to their independence. Therefore, in line with the principle of independence in the functioning of the Board, applicants are asked to indicate in the application form any direct or indirect relationship they consider to be relevant to the mission of the Authority.

Participation in the Board meetings

Members will need to make a high level of commitment to participate in the meetings of the Management Board. They are asked to indicate in the application form their availability to actively participate in the Management Board. It is estimated that the Management Board will meet four to six times per year. Members of the Board are not remunerated, but will be reimbursed for their normal travel and subsistence costs. They will also receive indemnities for each day spent at meetings in accordance with Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure of the Management Board of EFSA, which states that ‘members of the Management Board other than the Commission representative and those employed by a national public body or institution will receive a daily indemnity of EUR 300 for each meeting of the Board at which he/she is present’.

Members of the Management Board having a background in organisations representing consumers and other interests in the food chain

Candidates are asked to indicate if their application should be considered as an expression of interest in the context of such Board Members and, if so, to provide details of their background in organisations representing consumers and other interests in the food chain.

Appointment and term of mandate

With the exception of the Commission representative, who is appointed by the Commission, members of the Management Board are appointed by the Council, in consultation with the European Parliament, from the list drawn up by the Commission on the basis of this call for expressions of interest. The term of office shall be four years and can be renewed once. Applicants should note that the Commission’s list will be made public. Individuals on the Commission’s list who are not appointed may be invited to constitute a reserve list to be used in the event of the need to replace members who are unable to complete their mandate.

Nationality

In this call, the Commission will seek to establish a short-list that, consistent with appointments securing the highest standards of competence and a broad range of expertise, will enable the appointments also to meet the objective of ‘the broadest possible geographical distribution’ to be facilitated by ‘a rotation of the different countries of origin of the Members’. It should be noted that members whose term of office ends on 30 June 2012 already include nationals of Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Italy, Slovenia and United Kingdom. Outgoing members (who may reapply unless they have completed the maximum two terms of office) include nationals of Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands and Sweden. To date, the Board has not included nationals of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

This Call is open to nationals of any EU Member State. Applicants must be nationals of an EU Member State.

Equal opportunities

The European Union takes great care to avoid any form of discrimination and actively encourages applications from women.

Application procedure and closing date

Applications shall comply with the requirements set out below; otherwise they will not be taken into consideration:

| 1. | Interested persons must use the attached form, which can also be downloaded from the Health and Consumers Directorate-General's website at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/efsa/efsa_management_board_en.htm |
| --- | --- |

1.

Interested persons must use the attached form, which can also be downloaded from the Health and Consumers Directorate-General's website at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/efsa/efsa_management_board_en.htm

| 2. | The application must be complete. It must include the application, as referred to in paragraph 3 below in one original printed version and three copies; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application must be complete. It must include the application, as referred to in paragraph 3 below in one original printed version and three copies;

| 3. | The application must include:






  (a) | a letter of motivation (signed); |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

The application must include:

(a)

a letter of motivation (signed);

| (b) | a completed application form (signed); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a completed application form (signed);

| (c) | a CV of minimum 1,5 pages and maximum 3 pages. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

a CV of minimum 1,5 pages and maximum 3 pages.

| 4. | The letter of motivation, the application form, the CV, and the supporting documents have to be written in an official language of the European Community. It would, however, be desirable to include a summary of experience and other pertinent information in English in order to facilitate the selection procedure. All applications will be treated as confidential. Supporting documents must be submitted at a later stage, if requested. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The letter of motivation, the application form, the CV, and the supporting documents have to be written in an official language of the European Community. It would, however, be desirable to include a summary of experience and other pertinent information in English in order to facilitate the selection procedure. All applications will be treated as confidential. Supporting documents must be submitted at a later stage, if requested.

| 5. | The final deadline for submission of applications is 30 September 2009. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The final deadline for submission of applications is 30 September 2009.

| 6. | The complete application must be sent:






  (a) | either by post or by courier service not later than 30 September 2009, in which case the evidence of the date of dispatch shall be constituted by the postmark or the date of the deposit slip, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Health and Consumers Directorate-General |
| Unit 03 — Science and Stakeholder Relations |
| For the attention of Mr R. Vanhoorde (Application for the Management Board) |
| Office F-101 (Tour) 04/168 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

6.

The complete application must be sent:

(a)

either by post or by courier service not later than 30 September 2009, in which case the evidence of the date of dispatch shall be constituted by the postmark or the date of the deposit slip, to the following address:

European Commission

Health and Consumers Directorate-General

Unit 03 — Science and Stakeholder Relations

For the attention of Mr R. Vanhoorde (Application for the Management Board)

Office F-101 (Tour) 04/168

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

| (b) | or delivered by hand to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Health and Consumers Directorate-General |
| Unit 03 — Science and Stakeholder Relations |
| For the attention of Mr R. Vanhoorde (Application for the Management Board) |
| Avenue du Bourget 1-3 |
| 1140 Brussels (Evere) |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

(b)

or delivered by hand to the following address:

European Commission

Health and Consumers Directorate-General

Unit 03 — Science and Stakeholder Relations

For the attention of Mr R. Vanhoorde (Application for the Management Board)

Avenue du Bourget 1-3

1140 Brussels (Evere)

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

not later than 16.00 on 30 September 2009. In this case, a receipt must be obtained as proof of submission, signed and dated by the official in the Commission's central mail department who took delivery. The department is open from 8.00 to 17.00 Monday to Thursday, and from 8.00 to 16.00 on Fridays. It is closed on Saturdays, Sundays and Commission holidays.

Neither applications sent by electronic mail or fax, nor those sent directly to the European Food Safety Authority will be accepted.

| 7. | In submitting an application, applicants accept the procedures and conditions as described in this call and in the documents to which it refers. In compiling their application, applicants may under no circumstances refer to any documents of any type submitted in prior applications (example: photocopies of previous applications will not be accepted). Any misrepresentation in supplying the required information may lead to the exclusion from the present Call. |
| --- | --- |

7.

In submitting an application, applicants accept the procedures and conditions as described in this call and in the documents to which it refers. In compiling their application, applicants may under no circumstances refer to any documents of any type submitted in prior applications (example: photocopies of previous applications will not be accepted). Any misrepresentation in supplying the required information may lead to the exclusion from the present Call.

Image

Image

Image

Image

---

(1)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 13.

(3)  OJ L 189, 12.7.2006, p. 7.

(4)  Ecology, protection of the biodiversity.

---

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/18

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5588 — GM/Delphi Steering II)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 168/07

| 1. | On 10 July 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 General Motors Corporation (‘GM’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of part of the undertaking Delphi Corporation (US) consisting of its global steering business and of certain other assets (together ‘Delphi Targets’) of by way of purchase of shares and assets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 10 July 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 General Motors Corporation (‘GM’, US) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of part of the undertaking Delphi Corporation (US) consisting of its global steering business and of certain other assets (together ‘Delphi Targets’) of by way of purchase of shares and assets.

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






  — | for GM: manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for GM: manufacture and sale of motor vehicles,

| — | for Delphi Targets: manufacture and sale of steering products and other components for automotive vehicles. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Delphi Targets: manufacture and sale of steering products and other components for automotive vehicles.

| 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 2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5588 — GM/Delphi Steering II, 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 2 2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5588 — GM/Delphi Steering II, 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.

---

OTHER ACTS

Commission

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/19

---

Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC

Request made by a Member State

2009/C 168/08

On 8 July 2009 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 9 July 2009.

This request, made by the Italian Republic, concerns certain financial services (cf: fourth indent of Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 2004/17/EC) in that country. Article 30 provides that the Directive does not apply where the activity in question is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not limited. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC and are without prejudice to the application of competition rules.

The Commission has a period of three months to take a decision on this request, starting on the working day referred to above. The period therefore ends on 9 October 2009.

The provisions of the third subparagraph of the abovementioned paragraph 4 are not applicable. Consequently, the period allowed to the Commission may be extended by three months. Any such extension must be published.

---

(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

---