ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10983 – ALTAREA / CARREFOUR / SNC ALTACAR SARTROUVILLE / SNC ALTACAR NANTES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 30/06)

On 18 January 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

— in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10983. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 27 June 2019 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.37956 – Ronds à Beton

Rapporteur: Austria

(2020/C 312/04)

1. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, which was in force at the time of the facts.

2. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment of the product and geographic market of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.

3. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the undertakings concerned by the draft decision participated in a single, complex and continuous infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, as spelled out in the draft decision.

4. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object and/or the effect of the agreements and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.

5. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices were capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.

6. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the applicability of Articles 7(1) and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 as legal basis.

7. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the applicability of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty as substantive law despite its expiry.

8. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.

9. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the oral hearing of 23 April 2018 remedied the procedural error identified by the European Court of Justice in its judgments of 21 September 2017.

10. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the continuation of proceedings.

11. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the arguments raised by the parties after the continuation of proceedings are appropriately addressed in the draft decision.

12. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that, for the reasons described in the draft decision, when balancing the general interest against the interest of the undertakings concerned, it is the effective implementation of the competition rules in the European Union that has to be ensured.

13. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees on the re-adoption of the decision by the European Commission.

14. The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union . I hereby confirm that Spain and Italy participated in this Advisory Committee meeting via videoconferencing link and asked me to sign the Opinion of the Advisory Committee on their behalf.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 25 September 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39824(2) – Trucks –

Rapporteur: Ireland

(2020/C 216/05)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for the draft decision.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the determination of the value of sales used for the calculation of the fines imposed by the draft decision.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines for the draft decision.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines for the draft decision.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable to the infringement.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no mitigating circumstances applicable to the infringement.

8. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for the draft decision.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions at the meeting on 19 February 2020 concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40335 – Romanian gas interconnectors

Rapporteur: Italy

(2021/C 16/02)

(1) The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(2) The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as described in the draft Decision.

(3) The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the offered commitments are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding, as set out in the draft Decision.

(4) The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision that, in light of the offered commitments, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 26 April 2021 concerning a preliminary draft prohibition decision in the case AT.40346 – SSA Bonds

Meeting by audio conference – via ‘Skype for Business’

Rapporteur: Estonia

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 418/09)

1. The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practices between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA agreement.

2. The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practices was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 EEA agreement.

3. The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.

4. The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s draft decision as regards the addressees.

5. The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision, with the exception of the immunity applicant.

6. The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the calculation of the proxy to the value of sales to enable the application to the case of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

7. The Advisory Committee (11 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.
Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40023 – Cross-border access to pay-TV – Withdrawal

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 184/06)

The draft decision, addressed to The Walt Disney Company, The Walt Disney Company Limited, Comcast Corporation, Universal Studios International B.V., Universal Studios Limited, Sony Group Corporation, CPT Holdings Inc., Colgems Productions Limited, Warner Media LLC, Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc. Sky Limited and Sky UK Limited (together ‘the parties’), concerns the withdrawal of the Commission’s 2019 Decision in Case AT.40023 – Cross border access to pay-TV (the ‘2019 Decision’) (2) that made certain commitments binding on the parties.

On 21 January 2021, the Directorate-General for Competition wrote to the parties, informing them that it was considering proposing that the Commission withdraw the 2019 Decision and discharge the monitoring trustees from their obligation to monitor compliance with the commitments (‘21 January 2021 Letter’), in light of the judgment in Case C-132/19 P (3) that annulled the commitments in the Commission’s 2016 Decision in Case AT.40023 – Cross border access to pay-TV, (4) that were essentially identical in scope to the commitments in the 2019 Decision. The 21 January 2021 Letter invited the parties to submit any observations regarding the potential withdrawal of the 2019 Decision by 5 February 2021. None of the parties objected to the withdrawal of the 2019 Decision.

I consider that all parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case.

Brussels, 18 March 2021. Wouter WILS

(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) Commission Decision of 7 March 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross- border access to pay-TV), C(2019) 1772 final (OJ C 132, 9.4.2019, p. 8).

(3) Case C-132/19 P - Groupe Canal + v Commission, EU:C:2020:1007.

(4) Commission Decision of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross- border access to pay-TV), C(2016) 4740 final (OJ C 437, 25.11.2016, p. 5).
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 21 January 2022 concerning a draft decision in case AT.39839 – Telefónica and Portugal Telecom

Rapporteur: Belgium

(2022/C 286/08)

1. The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission to re-impose fines on Telefónica, S.A. and Pharol, SGPS, S.A. by means of a decision pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

2. The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the identity of the services excluded from the value of sales on the basis that insurmountable barriers to entry existed and the parties were thus not in potential competition with each other during the period of application of the non-compete clause.

3. The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s use of the revised corrected figures for Telefonica for the purposes of identifying the value of sales.

4. The Advisory Committee (14 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines imposed on Telefónica, S.A. and Pharol, SGPS, S.A., including the reduction based on paragraph 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.
Opinion on restrictive practices and dominant positions at its meeting on 4 July 2022 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40305 - Network sharing - Czech Republic

Rapporteur: Italy

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 452/03)

(1) The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

(2) The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the proceedings can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, as described in the draft Decision.

(3) The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the offered commitments are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding, as set out in the draft Decision. 11 Member States voted in favour. 1 Member State abstained.

(4) The Advisory Committee (12 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s draft Decision that, in light of the offered commitments, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. 11 Member States voted in favour. 1 Member State abstained.
30 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
10.6.70 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC68/9
NOTICE
Amendmenttothelistofveterinaryexpertswhomaybecalledupontoformulate
opinionsinintra-Community tradeinbovineanimalsandswineandinfreshmeat
EntryNo9(1)inthe'listofveterinaryexpertspublishedinOfficialJournalofthe
EuropeanCommunitiesNo100of7June1966,page1604/66,andamendedbynotice
67/111/EEC(OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunitiesNo20of2February1967,
page332/67),bynotice67/356/EEC,(OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
No105of3June1967,page2116/67)andbyafurtherCommissionnoticepublished
inOfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunitiesNoC103of8August1969,page6,
isdeletedandreplacedbythefollowing:
No Name Nationality Address TelephoneNo
9G.M.Vogely
DirecteurvanhetOpenbaarSlachthuis
teUtrechtDutch Oranjelaan18,
Groenekan (Utrecht)
Netherlands03461-2081
(Utrecht)
I1)Section
NoL87/4 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 1.4.78
COMMISSION STATEMENT
concerningbasicpricesofcertainironandsteelproducts
InaccordancewiththetermsofthestatementpublishedinOfficialJournaloftheEuro­
peanCommunities NoL353of31December1977,theCommission ,totakeinto
accountthefluctuationsinexchangeratessince31December1977,fixesasfollowsthe
equivalentofoneEuropeanunitofaccountapplicablefrom1April1978.
EquivalentofoneEuropeanunitofaccount
BelgianandLuxembourgfranc
Germanmark
Dutchguilder
Poundsterling
Danishkrone
Frenchfranc
Italianlira
Irishpound39-7355
2-55455
2-72945
0-65191
7-0255
5-8889
1068-63
0-65191
4. 1. 79 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 2/3 
List of priority  regions  on the basis  of youth  unemployment 
BELGIQUE/BELGIE 
Provinces/Provincies  Brabant,  Hainaut,  Liege,  Limburg,  Namur. 
DANMARK 
Kobenhavns  og Frederiksberg  kommune;  amtskommuner  Bornholm,  Vestsjadland,  Stor-
stroms,  Fyn,  Sonderjylland,  Ribe,  Vejle,  Ringkobing,  Arhus,  Viborg,  Nordjylland;  Gron-
land. 
DEUTSCHLAND 
Schleswig-Holstein,  Saarland,  Berlin;  Verwaltungsbezirke  Braunschweig  und  Oldenburg, 
Regierungsbezirke  Hannover  und  Rheinhessen-Pfalz. 
FRANCE 
Champagne-Ardenne,  Picardie,  Haute-Normandie,  Basse-Normandie,  Nord-Pas-de-
Calais,  Bretagne,  Poitou-Charentes,  Aquitaine,  Midi-Pyrenees,  Limousin,  Rhohne-Alpes, 
Auvergne,  Languedoc-Roussillon,  Provence-Alpes-Cote  d'Azur-Corse;  Departements 
d'outre  mer. 
IRELAND 
The whole  country. 
ITALIA 
Piemonte,  Liguria,  Emilia-Romagna,  Toscana,  Umbria,  Marche,  Lazio,  Friuli-Venezia 
Giulia;  Mezzogiorno. 
NEDERLAND 
Provincies  Groningen,  Limburg. 
UNITED  KINGDOM 
Standard  Regions  North  and  North  West;  Scotland,  Northern  Ireland. 
This  list is applicable  from  1 December  1978.
18. 11. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 313/9 
Ninth amendment to the list of agencies and laboratories which third countries have made 
responsible for completing the documents which must accompany each consignment 
of wine imported into the Community (published under Article 4 (3) of Commission 
Regulation (EEC) No 2115/76 of 20 August 1976 laying down general rules for the 
import of wines, grape juice and grape must) 
(Official Journal of the European Communities No C 1 of 1 January 1981; first 
amendment: Official Journal of the European Communities No C 30 of 11 February 1981; 
second amendment: Official Journal of the European Communities No C 7 of 13 January 
1982; third amendement: Official Journal of the European Communities No C 46 of 20 
February 1982, fourth amendment: Official Journal of the European Communities No 
C 122 of 13 May 1982; fifth amendment: Official Journal of the European Communities No 
C 233 of 7 September 1982; sixth amendment: Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 343 of 31 December 1982; seventh amendment: Official Journal of the 
European Communities No C 23 of 28 January 1983; eighth amendment: Official Journal 
of the European Communities No C 148 of 7 June 1983) 
Page 9: in connection with Australia the following laboratories are added to column 3: 
'S. Smith & Son Pty. Ltd. 
Yalumba Vineyards 
Angaston 
South Australia 5353 
Lindemans Wines Pty. Ltd. 
31 Nyrang Street 
Lidcombe 
New South Wales 2141' 
Commission communications pursuant to Article 115 of the EEC Treaty 
By Decision dated 15 November 1983 the Commission has authorized the Italian 
Republic not to apply Community treatment to woven fabrics of cotton falling within 
heading No 55.09 of the Common Customs Tariff (category 2), originating in South 
Korea and in free circulation in the other Member States. 
The said Decision is applicable from 5 November to 31 December 1983. . 
By Decision dated 15 November 1983 the Commission has authorized the French 
Republic not to apply Community treatment to woven fabrics of cotton falling within 
heading No 55.09 of the Common Customs Tariff (category 2), originating in Egypt and 
in free circulation in the other Member States. 
The said Decision is applicable from 6 November to 31 December 1983. 
By Decision dated 17 November 1983 the Commission has authorized the Italian 
Republic not to apply Community treatment to ball, roller or needle roller bearings 
falling within heading No 84.62 of the Common Customs Tariff, originating in Japan 
and in free circulation in the other Member States. 
The said Decision is applicable from 1 November to 31 March 1984.
Uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature (CN)

(Classification of goods)

(2000/C 320/02)

Publication of explanatory notes made in accordance with Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000(2)

The Explanatory Notes to the combined nomenclature of the European Communities(3) are amended as follows:

On page 237

The following text shall be inserted: "6404 19 90 Other

This subheading includes shoes known as 'beach shoes', which are shoes the upper of which is limited to a strip of textile material, this upper being attached on both sides to a thick, lightweight alveolar plastic sole, in contact both with the foot and the ground. This textile strip leaves the front as well as the rear part of the foot uncovered, and its width does not exceed one third of the shoe's length. As the back of the foot is not enclosed by the shoe, the wearer's heel lifts from the sole when walking. Beach shoes are designed to be worn with wet or sandy feet on the beach or around swimming pools, and their design excludes any practical use for walking over a longer distance.

In this context the following provisions or definitions shall apply:

(a) Where the strip has an irregular width, the condition that its width should not exceed one third of the shoe's length must be fulfilled by its average width (i.e.: maximum + minimum width/2 is <= 1/3 of shoe's length).

(b) The strip may additionally be attached at a third point on the sole, situated between the big toe and second toe.

(c) A strip having one single 'velcro' closing is considered to be a single strip."

(1) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 264, 18.10.2000, p. 2

(3) OJ C 199, 13.7.2000, p. 1.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2000/C 361/02)

1. The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995(1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2. Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the removal of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3. Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Trade (Division B-1), rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussels(2), at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4. This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995.

>TABLE>

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) Telex COMEU B 21877; fax (32-2) 295 65 05.
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2001/C 29/03)

1. The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995(1) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2. Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the removal of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3. Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Trade (Division B-1), rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussels(2), at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4. This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995.

>TABLE>

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 (OJ L 257, 11.10.2000, p. 2).

(2) Telex COMEU B 21877; fax (32-2) 295 65 05.