ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/C 2/38.014 - IFPI Simulcasting

(pursuant to Article 15 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, 18.6.2001, p. 21)

(2003/C 104/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

A Statement of Objections was not issued in relation to the cooperation agreement to which the Commission proposes an exemption under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.

Interested third parties made comments following the publication (OJ C 231 of 17.8.2001, p. 18) of the Commission's intention, in accordance with Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62 to grant an exemption to this agreement.

The rights of the parties to be heard have been fully respected.

Brussels, 6 September 2002.

Serge Durande
Court of Justice - Appointment of the First Advocate General



Official Journal C 255 , 24/10/2003 P. 0007 - 0007



Appointment of the First Advocate General (2003/C 255/12) Under the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice appointed Mr Tizzano as First Advocate General for a period of one year from 7 October 2003.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2822 - ENBW/ENI/GVS

(pursuant to Article 15 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))

(2003/C 233/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The parties did accept the competition concerns from the outset. No reply to the 6(1)(c) decision was submitted by the parties. They proposed acceptable remedies at an early stage of phase II, which were slightly modified following the market test in order to reflect specific competition concerns raised by third parties in the market test. Therefore, no statement of objections was sent, no access to file took place as well as no hearing.

Neither the parties nor any third party did question the way the market test was handled.

The case, therefore, does not give rise to any observations on the right to be heard.

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2002.

Serge Durande
Annual Report for 2002

(2003/C 270/06)

The European Ombudsman has presented his Annual Report for the year 2002 to the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 195(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 3(8) of the Decision of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the performance of the Ombudsman's Duties.

The Annual Report is available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 11 official languages at: http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int

Paper copies can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office: 1, avenue du Président Robert Schuman BP 403 F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. (33) 388 17 23 13 Fax (33) 388 17 90 62 E-mail: euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at its 83rd meeting on 31 August 2000 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1879 - Boeing/Hughes

(2004/C 53/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

(2) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension.

(3) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to further delineate the relevant product markets for satellites.

(4) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market

(a) for commercial satellites is world-wide;

(b) for government satellites (civil and military), for the purposes of this case, does not need to be further delineated.

(5) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of this case, it is not necessary to further delineate the relevant product markets for launch services.

(6) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for launch services is world-wide in the case of commercial applications and that it has to be distinguished from military or other governmental launches.

(7) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation will not create or strengthen a dominant position on the satellite markets as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the EEA or any substantial part of that area.

(8) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation will not create or strengthen a dominant position on the markets for launch services as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the EEA or any substantial part of that area.

(9) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation is to be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA agreement pursuant to Article 8(2) paragraph one of the Merger Regulation.

(10) The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at the 102nd meeting on 19 October 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to case COMP/M.2420 - Mitsui/CVRD/Caemi

(2004/C 79/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and that it has a community dimension.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, each of the following iron ore products constitutes a relevant product market:

(a) Sinter fines

(b) lump

(c) pellets

(d) the hypothetical markets for: (i) DR pellets and (ii) a combination of DR pellets and DR lump, but that it is not necessary to decide whether these are two separate product markets since the results of the competition assessment are the samt in either case.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, the relevant geographic markets are total sales of the relevant products to seaborne destinations.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, total seaborne sales are a proxy for calculating world-wide market shares.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, the notified concentration leads to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it in the markets for:

(a) seaborne sales of iron ore pellets

(b) the hypothetical markets for DR pellets and/or DR lump.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration will not lead to the creation or strenghtening of a dominant position in the markets for:

(a) sinter fines

(b) lump.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitment submitted by the parties to dispose of Caemi's 50 % interest in QMC is sufficient to remove competition concerns arising in respect of the markets for seaborne sale of iron ore pellets and for Direct Reduction iron ore and that no further commitments are necessary.

8. The Advisory Committee therefore agrees that the proposed concentration should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

9. The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take account of all the points raised in the discussion.

10. The Advisory Committee recommends publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 117th meeting on 18 July 2003 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.2972 - DSM/Roche Vitamins

(2004/C 69/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes an operation within the meaning of Article 3(2) in conjunction with Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and that it has a Community dimension as defined by Article 1(2) of that Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product markets affected by the concentration are for the production and the distribution of:

(a) phytase; and

(b) NSP degrading enzymes.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic markets affected by the concentration are:

(a) at least EEA wide for the production of phytase and NSP degrading enzymes;

(b) EEA wide for the distribution of phytase and NSP degrading enzymes.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration is likely to lead to serious concerns for the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in the market for phytase.

5. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not give rise to competitive concerns in the market for NSP degrading enzymes. A minority disagrees.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments proposed by the notifying party modify the notified concentration to such an extent that serious doubts as to the compatibility of the proposed concentration with the common market are removed.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration should be declared compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and with the EEA agreement, subject to compliance with the commitments proposed by the notifying party.

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

9. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account the remarks and comments made by the Advisory Committee.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.3083 - GE/Instrumentarium

(drawn up in accordance with Article 15 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))

(2004/C 92/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations:

- The proposed concentration was notified on 28 February 2003.

- On 3 April 2003, in a decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation, the Commission found that the notified concentration raised serious doubts. In line with the transparency policy which the Commission is currently pursuing, the parties received non-confidential versions of key documents provided by thrid parties.

Although the degree of precision of the documents did not fully satisfy GE, i nevertheless was able to submit comments rapidly, before a decision was taken on the sending of a statement of objections. In this context, thanks to a confidentiality agreement, the notifying party's economists also had access to data and economic analyses provided by an interested third party.

- On 4 Juli 2003, the Commission sent a statement of objections to GE. In the light of the preliminary results of the investigation, a number of elements on which the Commission had initially expressed serious doubts wre not included in the statement of objections.

During the ensuing access-to-the-file exercise, a solution to the question of the confidentiality of certain documents was found through the arrangements put in place by the Commission with the agreement of all the parties concerned. The arrangements enabled the notifying party's economists to check the economic analyses carried out by the Commission on the basis of the data communicated by third parties, subject to a confidentiality agreement.

- The parties then proposed corrective measures to the Commission; these were the subject of a market survey, whose objectivity was not called into question.

The parties did not consider it necessary to reply to the statement of objections and consequently did not request a formal hearing either.

The right of the parties to be heard has been respected fully throughout the investigation.

Done at Brussels, 14 August 2003.

(signed pp Karen Williams)

Serge Durande
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 62/7

Notice of 21 January 2005 from the Malta Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

(2005/C 62/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

In accordance with Article 10 of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the Republic of Malta notifies the European Commission that the only Competent Authority is the Minister for Resources and Infrastructure of the Republic of Malta, Block B, Floriana CMR 02, Malta.

In accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 94/22/EC, the Minister for Resources and Infrastructure of the Republic of Malta hereby notifies that the criteria used when granting authorisations are:

(a) the financial resources of the applicant;

(b) the technical competence and experience of the applicant;

(c) the work programme proposed by the applicant;

(d) where relevant, any previous performance of the applicant under any other previous authorisation; and,

(e) if the authorisation is put up for sale, the price which the entity is prepared to pay in order to obtain the authorisation.

In accordance with Article 5(2) of Directive 94/22/EC, information on the conditions and requirements concerning the exercise or termination of the activity which apply to each type of authorisations is given in Model ESA (2001) and Model PSC (2001), published by The Oil Exploration Department, Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure, Block B, Floriana CMR 02, Malta. The information in question does not necessarily apply in the case provided for in Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC.

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/12

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission decision 2001/462/3C, 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)

(2005/C 134/06)

On 13 November 2001 the Commission received notification, under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’), of a transaction whereby a part of the assets of the French company Moulinex was to be acquired by another French company, SEB. On 8 January 2002 the Commission decided not to oppose to the transaction notified and to declare it compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments which formed an integral part of the decision. This decision, adopted under Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation, authorised the transaction with respect to its effects outside France. The French authorities had requested that part of the case be referred to them, and by a decision likewise adopted on 8 January 2002, under Article 9 of the Merger Regulation, the Commission referred the French aspects of the case to the French authorities.

On 3 April 2003 the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission's authorising decision with respect to five countries where no remedies had been required (Spain, Finland, Italy, the United Kingdom and Ireland). The Commission then reopened the first phase of investigation.

In accordance with Article 10(5) of the Merger Regulation, the date on which the notification and the time limits which depend on it now took effect was 3 April 2003.

On 23 May 2003 the Commission concluded that the commitments offered by SEB did not overcome the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the common market, and decided to initiate formal proceedings under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

Those proceedings were suspended on 19 June 2003 by a decision under Article 11 of the Merger Regulation. SEB supplied a full reply, and the proceedings resumed on 1 August 2003. The time limit for a decision under Article 8 of the Merger Regulation is consequently 25 November 2003. The conclusion from the detailed market surveys now carried out is that no commitments other than those entered into in the earlier proceedings were needed in order to prevent the creation or strengthening of a dominant position. For this reason no statement of objections has been sent to the parties.

I consider that the undertakings' right to be heard has been respected in this case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/6

Notification by the Republic of Latvia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/08)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU presents its compliments to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union and has the honour to bring to their attention the following issue.

Becoming a Member State of the European Union, Latvia unilaterally introduced visa-free regime for the citizens of Canada in accordance with EU Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

Pursuant to Article 2 of EU Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity mechanism, Latvia would like to notify the Council and the Commission that Canada continue to apply unilateral visa regime to the citizens of the Republic of Latvia.

Taking into consideration the abovementioned and in accordance with the solidarity mechanism provided by Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 for achieving full reciprocity in respect to all Member States, Latvia believes that appropriate measures have to be taken in order to assure that all EU citizens may enter the territory of Canada under equal conditions.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union assurances of its highest consideration.

(1) This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 187/16

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/37.784 — Fine Art Auction Houses

(pursuant to Article 15 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)

(2005/C 187/12)

In connection with the draft decision, the following observations can be made on the right to be heard.

— The case began when Christie's told the Commission that a cartel existed between itself and Sotheby's. The Commission sent a statement of objections to the two auction houses on 19 April 2002. The two parties replied to the objections within the time allowed. They were given access to the file. All information was sent on CD-ROM. The parties waived their right to defend their case at an oral hearing.

— In view of the replies sent by the companies, various aspects of their trading policy, deemed to be infringements of Article 81 EC in the statement of objections, are not addressed in the draft Commission decision. I have not found, in the draft of the decision sent to the Commission, any new objections with respect to those stated in the Statement of Objections.

In the light of the above, it can be said that the rights of the defence have been fully respected.
2.

The reference period shall be: — the month of January for rates of conversion applicable from 1 April following, — the month of April for rates of conversion applicable from 1 July following, — the month of July for rates of conversion applicable from 1 October following, — the month of October for rates of conversion applicable from 1 January following. The rates for the conversion of currencies shall be published in the second Official Journal of the European Union (‘C’ series) of the months of February, May, August and November.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/5

Notification by the Republic of Latvia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/07)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU presents its compliments to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union and has the honour to bring to their attention the following issue.

Becoming a Member State of the European Union, Latvia unilaterally introduced visa-free regime for the citizens of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in accordance with EU Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

Latvia would like to notify the Council and the Commission that the citizens of the Republic of Latvia are beneficiaries of a tourist visa in the form of the tourist card DEX — 2 which entitles the citizens of the Republic of Latvia to enter the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for tourist purposes for a period not exceeding 90 days. Taking into account recital 4 of the Preamble of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity mechanism, this situation can not be admitted as full reciprocity.

Taking into consideration the abovementioned and in accordance with the solidarity mechanism provided by Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 for achieving full reciprocity in respect to all Member States, Latvia believes that appropriate measures have to be taken in order to assure that all EU citizens may enter the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under equal conditions.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union assurances of its highest consideration.

(1) This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).