ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 50/9

Special Report to the European Parliament made in accordance with Article 3(7) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman (1)

(2005/C 50/08)

The European Ombudsman addressed a special report to the European Parliament on 20 December 2004 following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in own-initiative OI/2/2003/GG (Confidential).

The text of the special report is available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 20 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 B.P. 403 F-67001 Strasbourg Cedex. Tel. (33-3) 88 17 23 13 Fax (33-3) 88 17 90 62 Email: euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int.

(1) Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman's Duties, OJ 1994 L 113/15.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fines based on the gravity and duration of the infringement for both parties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/1

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

(2005/C 251/02)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the EU presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and the European Commission and has the honour to convey the following:

In compliance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 we notify that:

A. The following countries from Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, Annex II, require Estonian nationals to apply for a visa or the equivalent of a visa: 1. Australia, 2. Brazil, 3. Brunei, 4. Canada, 5. Panama, 6. United States of America, 7. Uruguay.

B. The following countries from Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, Annex II, allow Estonian nationals to stay without a visa up to 30 days: 1. Bolivia, 2. Costa Rica, 3. Malaysia, 4. Singapore.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the EU avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Council of the European Union and the European Commission the 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 277/1

Notification by Denmark concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 277/01)

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 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, Denmark hereby informs you that Danish nationals are subject to a visa requirement when entering Australia.

A copy of this letter is being sent to the Directorate-General for Freedom, Security and Justice at the Commission.

(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 251/10

Notification by the Federal Republic of Germany concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/14)

Sir,

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, I would inform you that, as at 24 June 2005, nationals of the Federal Republic of Germany are subject to visa requirements by third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 in the following cases:

— Australia;

— Brunei Darussalam (for a stay of more than 30 days);

— Venezuela (for entry by land or sea).

A similar letter has been sent to Commission Vice-President Franco Frattini.

(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 310/1

Notification by Iceland concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 310/01)

I refer to my letter to you today, where I informed you that Iceland accepts the content of a Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005, amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism, following your notification to Iceland of the adoption by the Council of the referred act, in accordance with Article 8(2a) of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

Please accept the following notification from Iceland.

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, I wish to inform you that nationals of the Republic of Iceland are subject to a visa requirement in the following third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001:

— Australia

— Brunei Darussalam

— Nicaragua

— Panama

— Paraguay.

(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).
(3)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings opened with a preliminary assessment under Article 81 of the Treaty in June 2004, can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 which will make commitments binding on REPSOL CPP, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the legal assessment made by the Commission, notably with the legal qualification of the facts as agreements and/or concerted practices and/or decisions within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 75/6

Notification by Romania concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2007/C 75/04)

In accordance with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851 of 2 June 2005 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, Romania would inform you, in connection with the reciprocity mechanism, that the following third countries impose a visa requirement on Romanian nationals: Australia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, United States of America, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay.

(1) This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/19

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C2/38.681 — The Cannes Extension Agreement

(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)

(2007/C 272/07)

The draft Decision presented to the Commission under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 concerns the five major music publishers and thirteen collecting societies who entered into the so-called Cannes Extension Agreement which relates to the management of mechanical rights.

Universal Music BV lodged a complaint to the Commission on 27 February 2003 alleging that certain terms of the agreement infringed Articles 81 of the EC Treaty. The Cannes Extension Agreement was subsequently notified to the Commission on 1 July 2003 under Regulation No 17/62. However, the notification procedure was discontinued on 1 May 2004 due to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

On 23 January 2006, the Commission sent a Preliminary Assessment to the thirteen mechanical copyright collecting societies and five major music publishers, parties to the Cannes Extension Agreement. In its Preliminary Assessment the Commission identified two clauses of the Cannes Extension Agreement as raising concerns with regard to their compatibility with Article 81 of the EC Treaty and 53 of the EEA Agreement: Clause 9(a), which limits the possibility of collecting societies to grant rebates to commercial users, and clause 7(a)(i), under which collecting societies are barred from engaging into any activities in the music publishing or record producing markets.

During preliminary discussions, the parties have offered commitments to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission. A notice pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 was published in the Official Journal on 23 May 2006 in order to market-test the commitments. The Notice invited third parties to submit comments within one month from the date of publication. Subsequently, on 5 July 2006, Universal International Music BV withdrew its complaint.

In light of the commitments and following the market-test the relevant Commission services considered that there were no longer grounds for action by the Commission and, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the proceedings in the present case shall be brought to an end.

No questions or submission have been addressed to me by the parties or third parties. The Parties have formally declared that they have received sufficient access to the information that they considered necessary to offer commitments in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission. In the light of the above, the case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
2.

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.
6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the operation should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/24

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4662 — Syniverse/BSG

(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)

(2008/C 101/08)

On 5 June 2007, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration by which the undertaking Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (Syniverse), would acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of the wireless business of Billing Services Group Limited (BSG) by way of purchase of shares.

After a preliminary examination of the notification, the Commission found that the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, it decided on 10 July 2007 to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Syniverse was given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules for merger cases, in the form of non-confidential versions of third parties' replies to the market investigation; these were provided on 17 July 2007.

Following an in-depth market investigation, the Commission services concluded that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it and is therefore compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
5.

As regards the Commission's conclusion on the impact of the margin squeeze on competition and harm to the consumer, the Advisory Committee agrees with (a) the Commission's assessment on likely effects; and (b) the Commission's assessment on actual effects. A minority disagrees on (b).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/5

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4747 — IBM/Telelogic

(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)

(2008/C 195/04)

On 28 June 2007, the Commission received a referral request from International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Merger Regulation). No Member State competent to examine the concentration under its national competition law objected to the referral. Accordingly, the concentration was deemed to have a Community dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation and should therefore be notified to the Commission.

Subsequently, on 29 August 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which IBM acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, control of the undertaking Telelogic AB by way of a public bid, which was announced on 11 June 2007.

After a preliminary examination of the notification, the Commission found that the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the EEA agreement. Accordingly, the Commission decided, on 3 October 2007, to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 15 November 2007, the Commission adopted a decision under Article 11(3) of the Merger Regulation requiring IBM to supply certain information. In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (the Merger Implementing Regulation) the procedure was suspended from 5 November 2007 until 3 December 2007.

Access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 9 October 2007 in accordance with DG Competition's ‘Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings’.

Following the in-depth market investigation the Commission has concluded that the proposed transaction does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and is therefore compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the merging parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/3

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 411th meeting on 3 July 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft

(2008/C 138/04)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees, on the basis of the Trustee's reports and the Commission's analysis, that the entirety of the materials (1) that Microsoft has submitted up to 15 December 2005 at midnight does not correspond to complete and accurate technical documentation and that, therefore, Microsoft has not complied with the disclosure order laid down in Articles 5(a) and (c) of the 24 March 2004 Decision.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission when the latter states that it was well founded to send a Statement of Objections to Microsoft on 21 December 2005 after having examined all the documents submitted by Microsoft within the deadline laid down in the 10 November 2005 decision, i.e. by 15 December 2005.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission (2) when the latter, on the basis of the reports from the Trustee and the Commission's experts, considers that, Microsoft, over the period 16 December 2005-20 June 2006 has not satisfied the obligation which the periodic penalty payment was intended to enforce (i.e. it has not provided the technical documentation which is conformity with what is required under the disclosure order laid down in Articles 5(a) and (c) of the 24 March 2004 Decision.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees that the Commission can, when applying Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, fix the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment for a relevant period of time, before Microsoft has satisfied the obligation laid down in Articles 5(a) and (c) of the 24 March 2004 Decision.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission in considering the period between 16 December 2005 and 20 June 2006 as the relevant period of time.

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

(1) Consisting of the versions of the documentation of December 2004, August 2005 and November 2005, and the letter of 15 December 2005 with Annexes.

(2) The Commission summarises its position in recitals 232 and 233 of the draft decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/3

Communication from the French Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for oil and gas, designated the ‘Permis de Forcelles’)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 117/03

On 3 July 2008, Terre, a company with registered offices at 14 route de Beaugency, 41220 La Ferté-Saint-Cyr (France), applied for an exclusive three-year licence, designated the ‘Permis de Forcelles’, to prospect for oil and gas in an area of approximately 20 km2 in the department of Meurthe-et-Moselle.

The perimeter of the area covered by this licence consists of the meridian and parallel arcs connecting in turn the points defined below by their geographical coordinates, the original meridian being that of Paris.

Points Longitude Latitude A 4,14 gr E 53,85 gr N B 4,20 gr E 53,85 gr N C 4,20 gr E 53,81 gr N D 4,12 gr E 53,81 gr N E 4,12 gr E 53,84 gr N F 4,14 gr E 53,84 gr N

Submission of applications and criteria for awarding rights

The initial applicants and competing applicants must meet the requirements for obtaining the licence specified in Articles 4 and 5 of Decree No 2006-648 of 2 June 2006 concerning mining rights and underground storage rights (Journal officiel de la République française of 3 June 2006).

Interested companies may, within 90 days of the publication of this notice, submit a competing application in accordance with the procedure summarised in the ‘Notice regarding the granting of mining rights for hydrocarbons in France’, published in Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 of 30 December 1994, p. 11, and established by Decree No 2006-648 concerning mining rights and underground storage rights. Competing applications must be sent to the Minister responsible for mines at the address below.

The decisions on the initial application and the competing applications will be based on the criteria governing the award of mining rights, as set out in Article 6 of the abovementioned Decree, and will be taken by 13 August 2010 at the latest.

Conditions and requirements regarding performance of the activity and cessation thereof

Applicants are referred to Articles 79 and 79.1 of the Mining Code (code minier) and to Decree No 2006-649 of 2 June 2006 on mining and underground storage operations and the regulations governing mining and underground storage (Journal officiel de la République française of 3 June 2006).

Further information can be obtained from the following address: Ministère de l’écologie, du développement et de l’aménagement durables, Direction générale de l'énergie et du climat, Direction générale de l’énergie, Bureau exploration et production des hydrocarbures, 41 boulevard Vincent Auriol, 75703 Paris Cedex 13, FRANCE (tel. +33 144972302; fax: +33 153941440).

The laws and regulations referred to above can be consulted at Légifrance's website:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees that for the purpose of the present case the product market definition should be delineated as follows: — it is appropriate to distinguish various types of ships within the overall commercial shipbuilding sector, — chemical/oil tankers and product tankers should be considered as two separate markets or as a single product market, whereas this question can be left open in this case, — cruise ships and ferries should be considered as two separate product markets or as a single product market, whereas this question can be left open in this case, — the Commission should focus its analysis on cruise ships of over 30 000 gt where Aker Yards is active, whereas it is not necessary for the present case to distinguish different markets for different sizes of cruise ships, — the question whether ship engine manufacturing should be segmented can be left open in this case. A minority abstains.
4.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by RWE AG, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority disagrees.
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.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that this is essentially a vertical merger comprising the following relevant product markets: — Winder sensors — Upstream market — Winders — Downstream market — Open-end spinning sensors — Upstream market — Open-end spinning machines — Downstream market — the question whether open-end spinning machines and ring spinning machines form part of the same market can be left open in the present case — Weaving sensors — Upstream market — Weaving machines (rapier looms, projectile looms and air-jet looms) — Downstream market — the question whether these markets should be further sub-segmented (negative/positive rapier looms, projectile/air-jet looms) can be left open in the present case — MES for the textile industry — the exact product market definition for these products can be left open in the present case.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the pre-pricing communications described in the preliminary draft decision in which the parties (i) discussed or disclosed their views about price trends and/or discussed or disclosed indications of quotation prices for the up-coming week, and (ii) discussed price setting factors (that is factors relevant for setting of quotation prices for the upcoming week), have as their object the restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and concern the fixing of prices, whereby parties coordinated quotation prices for bananas.