ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 286/11

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 applications for exclusive licences to prospect for oil and gas, designated the ‘Cahors Licence’)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 286/07

In the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 213 of 6 August 2010, the longitude coordinates should be read in grad West and not in grad East as stated.

Further information can be obtained from the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Marine Affairs: Direction générale de l'énergie et du climat, Direction de l’énergie, Sous-direction de la sécurité d’approvisionnement et nouveaux produits énergétiques, Grande Arche de la Défense — Paroi Nord, 92055 La Défense Cedex, FRANCE (tel. +33 140819529).

The abovementioned laws and regulations can be consulted on the Légifrance website: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 237/21

DECISION No 297

of 12 May 2010

terminating the procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-5 ‘Devetaki’, located in the provinces of Lovech, Pleven and Gabrovo

2010/C 237/05

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

Pursuant to Article 50(2), in conjunction with Articles 23(4) and 46(2)(2), of the Subsurface Resources Act and having regard to an infringement noted in the conduct of the procedure, resulting in a tenderer who does not meet the mandatory requirements laid down in the Subsurface Resources Act and the tender dossier being deemed eligible to take part in the procedure,

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS HAS DECIDED THAT:

1. The procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-5 ‘Devetaki’, located in the provinces of Lovech, Pleven and Gabrovo, shall be terminated.

2. The Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism shall take the necessary steps to return the deposits to the tenderers after this Decision has entered into force.

3. This Decision shall be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court within 14 days following its communication to the tenderers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 348/7

Final report of the Hearing Officer

In Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft — Deletion of Article 7 of Commission Decision 2007/53/EC and repealing Commission Decision C(2005) 2988 (1)

2010/C 348/07

On 24 March 2004, the Commission adopted Decision 2007/53/EC relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 (EC) and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft Corporation (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft, OJ L 32, 6.2.2007, p. 23).

Article 7 of this decision (the Decision) provides for the establishment of a suitable mechanism to assist the Commission in monitoring Microsoft's compliance with the Decision.

By Decision C(2005) 2988 of 28 July 2005 (Trustee Decision), the Commission established a monitoring mechanism by providing for the appointment, functions and obligations of a Monitoring Trustee. The Trustee's function is to assist the Commission in overseeing compliance with the Decision (2).

In its judgment of 17 September 2007, the Court of First Instance (3) upheld the substantive parts of the Decision which Microsoft had appealed. However, the Court annulled Article 7 of the Decision in so far as it orders Microsoft to submit a proposal for the establishment of a mechanism which is to include a monitoring trustee with the power to have access, independently of the Commission, to Microsoft's assistance, information, documents, premises and employees and to the source code of the relevant Microsoft products.

The Commission, having come to the conclusion that this monitoring mechanism as established by the Trustee Decision is no longer appropriate for the purpose of monitoring Microsoft's compliance with Decision 2007/53/EC, has informed both Microsoft and the Monitoring Trustee by letter of 28 January 2009 of its intention to ‘delete’ Article 7 of the Decision and to repeal the Trustee Decision.

Microsoft has answered by e-mail of 10 February, without commenting on the intended decision. The Monitoring Trustee has replied by letter of the same date not expressing any opinion upon decisions of the Commission that impact upon the matters being monitored.

In my view, the draft final decision, addressed to Microsoft, contains no elements of law or of fact that had not been set out in the letter sent to Microsoft and the Monitoring Trustee, dated 28 January 2009.

In the light of the above, I consider that the right to be heard of Microsoft and of the Monitoring Trustee have been respected in the present case.

Brussels, 16 February 2009. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) 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).

(2) Cf. Article 7 of the Decision and Article 3 of the Trustee Decision.

(3) Case T-201/04, Microsoft v Commission (2007) ECR11-3601.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's definition of the relevant product market as encompassing: — the wholesale market for bitstream access (BSA), — the wholesale market for local loop unbundling (LLU), and — the retail market, which comprises all standard broadband products offered at a fixed location.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/7

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/39.592 — Standard & Poor's

2012/C 31/04

The draft Commitment Decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 concerns Standard & Poor's, a subsidiary of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Standard & Poor's, as the sole-appointed US numbering agency, which is alleged to have abused its dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 of the TFEU by charging unfair prices for the use of US International Securities Identification Numbers (‘ISINs’) in the EEA. ISINs are identifiers for securities and are indispensible for operations such as interbank communication, clearing and settlement, custody, reporting to authorities and reference data management.

The case against Standard & Poor's originated from a joint complaint submitted by the European Fund and Asset Management Agency (‘EFAMA’) and other associations.

On 6 January 2009 the Commission opened proceedings with a view to taking a decision under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and adopted a statement of objections on 13 November 2009. While disagreeing with the preliminary findings, Standard & Poor's submitted a set of commitments on 7 April 2011 to meet the competition concerns of the Commission. The company offered to abolish all charges to indirect end users of US ISINs. With respect to direct users, Standard & Poor's undertook to distribute US ISIN records separately from other added value data. The initial price of this service was to be set at USD 15 000 per annum.

On 14 May 2011, the Commission published a summary of the case and the main content of the commitments in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4). It invited interested third parties to submit observations. Having received a number of responses, in particular from end users, it informed Standard & Poor's of the observations it had received. In light of these, the company submitted final revised commitments in September 2011.

After the Commission had informed the complainants about the revised commitments, they withdrew their complaint.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, without prejudice to Article 9(2), the proceedings should be brought to an end.

No queries or submissions have been made to me in connection with the present case by Standard & Poor's or any third parties.

I consider therefore that the right to be heard has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 26 October 2011. Michael ALBERS

(1) Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

(2) In the following, all Articles referred to relate to Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the infringement of Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, i.e. the refusal to submit to the inspection, was committed negligently with regard to the unblocking of an e-mail account and intentionally with regard to the diversion of incoming e-mails.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 206/12

Update of the notification by Latvia under Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)

The possibility for a Member State to provide by law for an obligation to hold or carry papers and documents pursuant to Article 21(c)

2012/C 206/06

LATVIA

Amendment to the information provided by Latvia and published in the OJ C 18, 24.1.2008

Amendments to the Law on the State border of the Republic of Latvia entered into force on 21 March 2012. Article 20(1) of the Law states that a person has the responsibility while in the border zone (an area no narrower than 30 km along the external land border) of keeping a document (or documents) upon their person confirming their identity and right to reside in the Republic of Latvia and of presenting the document or documents to an official of the State Border Guard upon request. This provision does not apply to a person who is an official (or member of staff) of a central or local government authority and who, in the exercise of their duties (or in their official capacity) in the border zone is able to present a service card (or work certificate) provided for in the legislation governing the operations of the relevant authority.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/9

Annual Report 2011

2012/C 369/08

The European Ombudsman has presented his Annual Report for the year 2011 to the European Parliament.

The Annual Report as well as a shorter version are available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 23 official languages at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu

Paper copies of these publications can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office:
77.

The EDPS recommends that the Regulation should, when it will be amended, as foreseen, later in 2012: — clarify further what personal data are to be processed under the Regulation, and what personal data are stored and processed in the Union Registry and the EUTL. The EDPS would in particular welcome a general provision in the Regulation that no special categories of personal data shall be recorded in the EUTL and the Union Registry (Section 4), — establish clearly whether the central administrator will be part of the European Commission, will be another EU institution/agency/body, or an entity organised under the laws of one of the Member States (Section 5), — require the adoption of a data protection policy to allocate tasks and responsibilities (Section 6), — define more specifically the purposes of access to data by third parties, including Europol, and provide adequate safeguards for anonymisation in case of data mining (Section 7), — prohibit publication of sensitive data (Section 8), — be amended with regard to retention periods to ensure that the data retention requirements are in accordance with EU data protection legislation (Section 9), — ensure that adequate notice should be provided to data subjects about the fact that they have been blacklisted and that a mechanism is available to ensure rights of access of data subjects and that the information contained in the blacklist is accurate and up-to-date; ensure adequate retention periods, limits on access and limits on the purposes for which the black-list may be used (Section 10), — prohibit transfers of sensitive personal data outside the European Union, in particular, to the International Transaction Log (Section 11), and — provide additional clarifications on security and accountability (audits) (Section 12).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 308/7

Corrigendum to the average costs of benefits in kind — 2011

( Official Journal of the European Union C 273 of 21 September 2013 )

2013/C 308/07

On page 11, point II, the entry of Finland in the table should read as follows:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/6

Article 107(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

Reference period: April 2013

Application period: July, August and September 2013

04-2013 EUR BGN CZK DKK LVL LTL HUF PLN 1 EUR = 1 1,95580 25,8410 7,45533 0,700557 3,45280 298,669 4,13589 1 BGN = 0,511300 1 13,2125 3,81191 0,358195 1,76542 152,709 2,11468 1 CZK = 0,0386982 0,0756859 1 0,288508 0,0271103 0,133617 11,5580 0,160051 1 DKK = 0,134132 0,262336 3,46611 1 0,0939673 0,463132 40,0612 0,554756 1 LVL = 1,42744 2,79178 36,8864 10,6420 1 4,92865 426,331 5,90371 1 LTL = 0,289620 0,566439 7,48407 2,15921 0,202895 1 86,5005 1,19784 1 HUF = 0,00334819 0,00654839 0,0865205 0,0249618 0,00234560 0,0115606 1 0,0138477 1 PLN = 0,241786 0,472885 6,24800 1,80260 0,169385 0,834839 72,2140 1 1 RON = 0,228416 0,446736 5,90250 1,70292 0,160018 0,788675 68,2208 0,944703 1 SEK = 0,118415 0,231596 3,05997 0,882824 0,0829566 0,408864 35,3670 0,489752 1 GBP = 1,17542 2,29889 30,3741 8,76317 0,823451 4,05850 351,063 4,86142 1 NOK = 0,132549 0,259239 3,42520 0,988196 0,0928581 0,457665 39,5883 0,548207 1 ISK = 0,00646287 0,0126401 0,167007 0,0481828 0,00452761 0,022315 1,93026 0,0267297 1 CHF = 0,819749 1,60326 21,1831 6,11150 0,574281 2,83043 244,834 3,39039





04-2013 RON SEK GBP NOK ISK CHF 1 EUR = 4,37798 8,44486 0,850757 7,54438 154,730 1,21989 1 BGN = 2,23846 4,31786 0,434992 3,85744 79,1134 0,623727 1 CZK = 0,169420 0,326801 0,0329228 0,291954 5,98777 0,0472074 1 DKK = 0,587228 1,13273 0,114114 1,011940 20,7543 0,163626 1 LVL = 6,24928 12,0545 1,21440 10,7691 220,867 1,74131 1 LTL = 1,26795 2,44580 0,246396 2,18500 44,8129 0,353303 1 HUF = 0,0146583 0,0282750 0,00284849 0,0252600 0,518065 0,00408441 1 PLN = 1,05853 2,04185 0,205701 1,82413 37,4116 0,294952 1 RON = 1 1,92894 0,194327 1,72326 35,3428 0,278641 1 SEK = 0,518419 1 0,1007430 0,893369 18,3224 0,144453 1 GBP = 5,14598 9,92629 1 8,86784 181,873 1,43388 1 NOK = 0,580296 1,11936 0,112767 1 20,5093 0,161695 1 ISK = 0,0282943 0,0545781 0,00549833 0,0487584 1 0,00788396 1 CHF = 3,58884 6,92267 0,697407 6,18450 126,840 1

Note: all cross rates involving ISK are calculated using ISK/EUR rate data from the Central Bank of Iceland

reference: Apr-13 1 EUR in national currency 1 unit of N.C. in EUR BGN 1,95580 0,511300 CZK 25,8410 0,0386982 DKK 7,45533 0,134132 LVL 0,700557 1,42744 LTL 3,45280 0,289620 HUF 298,669 0,00334819 PLN 4,13589 0,241786 RON 4,37798 0,228416 SEK 8,44486 0,118415 GBP 0,850757 1,17542 NOK 7,54438 0,132549 ISK 154,730 0,00646287 CHF 1,21989 0,819749

Note: ISK/EUR rates based on data from the Central Bank of Iceland

1. Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 determines that the rate for the conversion into a currency of amounts denominated in another currency shall be the rate calculated by the Commission and based on the monthly average, during the reference period specified in paragraph 2, of reference rates of exchange of currencies published by the European Central Bank.
50.

The EDPS welcomes the proposal as it can contribute to mutual recognition (and acceptance) of electronic trust services and identification schemes at European level. He also welcomes the establishment of a common set of requirements that must be fulfilled by the issuers of electronic identification means and by trust service providers. Notwithstanding his general support for the proposal, the EDPS wishes to provide the following general recommendations: — data protection provisions included in the proposal should not be restricted to trust service providers and should also be applicable to the processing of personal data in the electronic identification schemes described in Chapter II of the proposal, — the proposed regulation should set a common set of security requirements for trust service providers and electronic identification issuers. Alternatively, it could allow the Commission to define where needed, through a selective use of delegated acts or implementing measures, the criteria, conditions and requirements for security in electronic trust services and identification schemes, — electronic trust service providers and electronic identification issuers should be required to provide the users of their services with: (i) appropriate information on the collection, communication, and retention of their data, as well as (ii) a means to control their personal data and exercise their data protection rights, — the EDPS recommends a more selective inclusion in the proposal of the provisions empowering the Commission to specify or detail concrete provisions after the adoption of the proposed regulation by delegated or implementing acts.
29.

In particular, the EDPS recommends: — including a substantive provision to clarify that the Proposal is not meant to provide for general derogations from data protection principles and that relevant personal data processing legislation (i.e. national rules implementing Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001) remain fully applicable in the market surveillance context. In addition, recital 30 would benefit from some redrafting, — amending Articles 19 and 21 of the Proposal so as to ensure that only personal information which is strictly necessary is processed for market surveillance purposes in RAPEX and ICSMS, respectively, in accordance with the principles of proportionality and data minimisation, — providing in the proposed Regulation (e.g. in Articles 19 and 21) for fixed retention periods for the personal data processed in RAPEX and ICSMS, keeping in mind that an unlimited retention period for personal data would be difficult to justify under EU data protection law (even though it may be justifiable in case of information about products), — maintaining the approach by which the public is informed about unsafe products (via the RAPEX website) without rendering personal information of economic operator(s) responsible for those products public, and applying a similar approach in all instances where information is published by market surveillance authorities in the context of the Proposal, — should it be the intention of the legislator to provide for the publication of personal information of economic operators (for example as a sanction in cases of repeated breaches or an additional deterrent), including explicit substantive provisions that would at least specify what kind of personal data may be made public and for what purpose(s): in this context, attention is drawn to the need to consider modalities of publication which would cause less interference with an individual’s right to respect for their private life and to protection of their personal data, in line with the Schecke judgment (6) of the Court of Justice, — supplementing the provisions on participation of applicant countries, third countries or international organisations in RAPEX (Article 19(4)), as well as on international exchange of confidential information (Article 22) with explicit references to specific provisions about personal data protection corresponding to those applicable in the Union, as required by Article 25 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.
13.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified transaction must therefore be declared incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(3) and 8(3) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. A minority abstains.
41.

The EDPS recommends: — that Article 85 of the proposed MD Regulation and Article 81 of the proposed IVD Regulation clarify the reference to Directive 95/46/EC by specifying that the provisions will apply in accordance with the national rules which implement Directive 95/46/EC, — inserting in Article 85 of the proposed MD Regulation and in Article 81 of the proposed IVD Regulation explicit reference to Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, — inserting similar paragraphs regarding purposes for data processing, data subject rights and data retention periods as in Article 27 of the proposed MD Regulation into Article 25 of the proposed IVD Regulation, subject to the modifications suggested in this Opinion, — including a definition of the term ‘subject’ in the proposed regulations, — unambiguously preventing the inclusion of all patients' health data in the clinical investigations module of the Eudamed database, — inserting provisions in the proposed MD Regulation and the proposed IVD Regulation that clearly define in which situations and subject to which safeguards information containing patient health data will be processed and stored in the Eudamed database concerning vigilance and post-market surveillance. In particular, the proposed regulation should require that a risk assessment be carried out by the Commission before the processing and storage of any patient health data in the Eudamed database, — including, in a recital of both proposed regulations, that any implementing measures to be adopted under the proposed regulations should specify in detail the data protection implications of the functional and technical characteristics of the Eudamed database and the EDPS should be consulted, — explicitly mentioning that periodic reports in Article 61 of the proposed MD Regulation and Article 59 of the proposed IVD Regulation should only be using anonymous data, — adding the following sentence to Article 8(6) of both proposed regulations: ‘Before any processing of data concerning health of patients takes place, manufacturers shall obtain explicit consent from the data subject pursuant to Article 8(2)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC.’, — inserting provisions regulating how personal data should be managed as regards the surveillance by competent authorities in the proposed regulations, — inserting a maximum retention period for personal data under the proposed regulations. The chosen period should be necessary and proportionate for the purposes for which personal data are collected and processed. — consulting the EDPS in relation to any delegated or implementing act adopted pursuant to the proposed regulations which might have an impact on the processing of personal data.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreements and/or concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between the Member States of the EU and between other contracting parties to the EEA Agreement in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and concerted practices referred to in the Articles of the draft decision restricted competition in the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Swiss Agreement as a single and continuous infringement for the durations referred to in these Articles of the draft decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 408/9

EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

2014/C 408/09

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/funding/accounts.htm