ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Cases COMP/35587 PO Video Games - COMP/35706 PO Nintendo Distribution - COMP/36321 Omega Nintendo

(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 241/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision in the abovementioned case gives rise to the following observations.

A statement of objections was addressed to Nintendo Corporation Ltd (copied to Nintendo of Europe GmbH), John Menzies plc (copied to THE Games Ltd), Soc. Rep. Concentra LDA, Linea GIG Spa, Nortec SA, Bergsala AB, Itochu Corporation (copied to Itochu Hellas SA) and CD-Contact Data GmbH (copied to Contact-Data Belgium NV) on 25 April 2000. The statement set out the Commissions preliminary view that infringements of Article 81(1) had been committed by Nintendo and the other addressees in relation to the distribution of Nintendo manufactured products. The Commission had opened an ex officio procedure in this case on 11 September 1995 (Case IV/35.706).

The statement of objections also incorporated issues raised in a complaint by Omega Electro BV registered with the Commission on 3 December 1996 (IV/36.321). In accordance with its rights as a complainant, Omega Electro BV was sent a non-confidential version of the statement of objections on 8 June 2000. Omega Electro BV did not submit any comments in response.

The proceedings in this case also rely on documents from an earlier and broader case opened by the Commission in relation to video games in general on 23 May 1995 (Case IV.35.587). Documents from this case were also used in earlier separate proceedings against Nintendo (and others) concerning its licensing practices with regard to independent developers of games for its respective game consoles. A statement of objections was sent to Nintendo in this case on 15 May 1996. In response to the Commissions competition concerns Nintendo amended its EEA NES, SNES and Game Boy licensing agreements. On 18 July 1997 the Commission informed Nintendo that these earlier proceedings against it were closed.

The parties responded to the statement of objections in the present case on individually agreed dates in June and July 2000. They did not request an oral hearing.

The rights to be heard have been respected in the present case.

The draft decision deals only with objections in relation to which the parties have had the opportunity to be heard.

Done at Brussels, 7 October 2002.

Karen Williams
Annex to the Rules on the confidentiality of Europol information — Table of equivalence between national classifications and corresponding Europol classifications



Official Journal C 201 , 26/08/2003 P. 0001 - 0001



Annex to the Rules on the confidentiality of Europol information Table of equivalence between national classifications and corresponding Europol classifications (2003/C 201/01) The following table is illustrative: the obligation on Member States is to provide an equivalent level of protection to that afforded by Europol rather than to attach a particular label. >TABLE>
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 75th meeting on 28 and 29 February 2000 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.1636 - MMS/DASA/Astrium

(2003/C 285/04)

(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 and has a Community Dimension as defined by Article 1(2) of that Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the sectors affected by the notified concentration comprise

(a) satellites;

(b) space infrastructure;

(c) launchers and launch services;

(d) ground segment; and

(e) equipment for satellites.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that precise market definitions can be left open in the markets for

(a) civil satellites;

(b) space infrastructure;

(c) launchers and launch services;

(d) ground segment; and

(e) equipment for satellites other than mechanical wheels,

as the concentration does not give rise to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in these areas.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant markets as detailed in the draft decision for

(a) mechanical wheels for satellites in Europe; and

(b) military communication satellites in France.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the operation as notified would raise competition concerns in the markets for

(a) mechanical wheels for satellites in Europe; and

(b) military communication satellites in France.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the notifying parties will remove the competition concerns specified at 5 above.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision that, subject to full compliance with these commitments, the concentration should be declared compatible with the common market.

8. The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take into account all the other points raised by the Member States during the discussion.

9. The Advisory Committee recommends publication of this opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court

(2003/C 255/11)

At its meeting on 9 October 2003, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

- C. Gulmann,

- K. Lenaerts,

- D. A. O. Edward,

- R. Silva de Lapuerta,

- A. La Pergola,

- A. Rosas,

- J.-P. Puissochet,

- J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,

- R. Schintgen,

- S. von Bahr,

- F. Macken,

- N. Colneric.

At its meeting on 9 October 2003, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

First Chamber:

- D. A. O. Edward,

- K. Lenaerts,

- A. La Pergola,

- R. Silva de Lapuerta,

- S. von Bahr,

- A. Rosas.

Second Chamber:

- C. Gulmann,

- J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,

- J.-P. Puissochet,

- N. Colneric,

- R. Schintgen,

- F. Macken.

At its meeting on 14 October 2003, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

Third Chamber:

- D. A. O. Edward,

- R. Schintgen,

- N. Colneric.

Fourth Chamber:

- J.-P. Puissochet,

- F. Macken,

- K. Lenaerts.

Fifth Chamber:

- A. La Pergola,

- S. von Bahr,

- R. Silva de Lapuerta.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/38.369/C1 - "T-Mobile Deutschland/02 Germany"

(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))

(2004/C 64/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 February 2002 T-Mobile Deutschland GmbH ("T-Mobile"), and 02 Germany & Co. OHG ("02 Germany" formerly VIAG Interkom GmbH) notified to the Commission an agreement of 20 September 2001 concerning infrastructure sharing and national roaming for the third generation of GSM mobile telecommunications ("3G") on the German market.

On 28 February 2002 the Commission published a summary of the application, inviting comments from interested parties. On 9 August 2002 a notice pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation 17/62 was published, setting out the main elements of the agreement and the Commission's preliminary position, and inviting third parties to provide their comments. Comments were received from a number of third parties and the German Competition Authority.

In January 2003, the parties amended the agreement in a manner which expanded the scope of their cooperation. Third parties that had responded to the Article 19(3) notice were consulted in relation to these amendments. In this manner, all likely interested third parties were given the opportunity to submit observations, if any. Following discussions with the Commission services, further modifications were made by the parties to this part of the agreement.

The rights to be heard in the present case have been respected.

Done at Brussels, 7 July 2003.

Karen Williams
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2434 - Grupo Villar Mir/ENBW/Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico

(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))

(2004/C 42/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision does not give rise to particular comments on the proceedings which, in their written phase, took a normal course. An Oral Hearing was not requested by the parties.

The parties' rights of defence were fully respected. The same is true of RTE's right to be heard as an intervening third party.

The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

Done at Brussels, 5 September 2001.

Helmuth Schröter
52004XX0406(02)

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand (under Article 15 of the 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)) (Text with EEA relevance)



Official Journal C 086 , 06/04/2004 P. 0014 - 0014
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2187 — CVC/Lenzing (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)) (Text with EEA relevance)



Official Journal C 069 , 19/03/2004 P. 0007 - 0007



Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2187 - CVC/Lenzing (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)) (2004/C 69/08) (Text with EEA relevance) The draft Decision does not give rise to particular observations. The proceedings took a normal course during their written phase. An oral hearing was not requested. No procedural problem was indicated by any of the parties. Done in Brussels, 8 October 2001. Luc Gyselen
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/38.240 - Industrial tubes

(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))

(2004/C 102/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft Decision gives rise to the following observations on the right to be heard:

Following a denunciation of a cartel in the LWC-tube sector by Mueller Industries Inc. the Commission adopted a Statement of Objection on 3 July 2003 against producers of industrial tubes, namely Wieland Werke AG, Outokumpu Oyj, Outokumpu Copper Products Oy, Società Metallurgica Italiana SpA, KM Europa Metal AG, Tréfimétaux SA and Europa Metalli SpA.

All parties submitted written replies to the objections within the time allowed. They did not substantially contest the facts.

The companies were given access to file by means of CD-ROMs.

One firm asked to be allowed to attend a hearing but afterwards withdrew its request. The other parties waived their right to defend their case at an oral hearing.

One party requested to have access to the non-confidential versions of the co-defendants' replies to the Statement of Objections. I have replied that there is no obligation for the Commission to grant access to the non-confidential versions of the replies of the other co-defendants.

In view of the replies given by the companies in writing, the services of the Commission decided not to pursue the procedure against Società Metallurgica Italiana SpA.

The draft Commission decision does not comprise any additional objections in respect of the undertakings other than those set out in the statement of objections.

In the light of the above, I consider that the right of the parties to be heard has been respected in this case.

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2003.

Serge Durande
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 105/2

Final report of the hearing officer in case COMP/E2 C.37.857 — organic peroxides

(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)

(2005/C 105/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations on the right to be heard.

— The Commission began proceedings in April 2000 when AKZO, a Dutch company, provided information about the existence of a cartel. A statement of objections was adopted on 27 March 2003 in respect of the following parties: Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Polymer Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel NV, Atofina SA, Degussa UK Holdings, Peroxid Chemie GmbH & Co.KG, Pergan GmbH, Peroxidos Organicos SA, FMC Foret SA, AC Treuhand AG, the trustee administering the cartel.

— The time allowed to answer the statement of objections was extended by over two weeks at the request of the parties. The final date was 17 June 2003. An oral hearing was held on 26 June 2003, at which: 1. Peroxid Chemie dropped a purely formal argument it had against the statement of objections. 2. New documents were provided by Atochem. I agreed to their inclusion in the file and I gave the other parties two weeks in which to send their comments to the Commission. The content confirmed the Commission's position concerning the duration of the infringement.

— In the light of the explanations supplied in the written reply to the statement of objections and at the hearing, the Commission has not continued the proceedings in respect of the infringement referred to in the statement of objections against Pergan GmbH, because it is out of time, and against FMC Foret SA, because no evidence has been found of its responsibility for the conduct of Perorsa, a company with which it has links.

— The draft decision submitted to the Commission contains no additional objections and relates only to objections about which the parties have had the opportunity to state their views.

In the light of the above, I believe that the right of the parties to be heard has been fully respected in this case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/3

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3431 — Sonoco/Ahlstrom

(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 151/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 May 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 by which the undertakings Sonoco Luxembourg S.à r.l. (Luxembourg), belonging to Sonoco Products Company (‘Sonoco’, US), and Ahlstrom Holding GmbH (Germany), belonging to Ahlstrom Corporation (‘Ahlstrom’, Finland), acquire joint control of the undertaking Sonoco — JV S.à r.l. (‘the JV’, Luxembourg), a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

Upon examination of the evidence submitted by the parties to the proposed concentration and after conducting a market investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. Commitments submitted by the parties that modified the original concentration plan were considered not sufficient to prevent serious doubts at that stage, following an initial market test. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)c of the Merger Regulation.

On 6 August 2004 the parties offered alternative commitments that modified the original concentration plan, which were also market tested. On 25 August 2004 another set of commitments were offered, which were closer to the initial commitments presented in Phase I. Having by this stage undertaken a detailed market analysis and following comments from market participants, the relevant Commission service considered that the serious doubts had been removed. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the parties. No queries were raised before the Hearing Officer by the parties or other companies as to the market test. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/3

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

(2005/C 251/04)

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 Malaysia 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 Malaysia applies visa-free regime up to 30 days to the citizens of the Republic of Latvia. 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 Malaysia 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 288/2

FINAL REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER IN CASE COMP/M.3440 — EDP/ENI/GDP

(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 288/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 July 2004, the Commission received notification, pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, of a proposed merger under which the undertakings EDP and ENI would acquire joint control of the undertaking GDP.

At the end of the first stage of the procedure, the Commission concluded that the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. On 12 August 2004, therefore, the Commission initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 12 October 2004, the Commission sent the parties a statement of objections in which it concluded, on a provisional basis, that the proposed transaction was incompatible with the common market since it would (i) reinforce EDP's dominant position on the Portuguese electricity wholesale and retail markets and on the market for the supply of ancillary services and (ii) reinforce GDP's dominant position on the Portuguese markets for the supply of gas to combined-cycle plants, large industrial customers and local distribution companies and on the market for the supply of gas to small customers (industrial, commercial and individual).

The parties were given access to the file by means of a CD-Rom which was sent with the statement of objections. They replied to the statement of objections on 27 October 2004. The parties waived the right to a formal hearing.

On 28 October 2004, the parties offered commitments designed to meet the competition concerns identified by the Commission in its statement of objections. The proposed commitments were the subject of a market test, whose result was communicated to the parties. The commitments were deemed to be quite insufficient by the Commission. On 17 November 2004, the parties submitted new commitments involving only slight changes to those initially submitted.

On 19 November 2004, the Commission sent the Members of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations a draft Decision pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Merger Regulation declaring the proposed merger, as amended by the proposed commitments, incompatible with the common market.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/10

Notification by the Czech Republic concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/15)

The Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the EU presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and has the honour to express its appreciation for the Council of the European Union once again for its continued cooperation and support on various matters related to the everyday conduct of duties of the Permanent Representation. In view of the amicable and working atmosphere existing between the Council of the European Union and the Permanent Representation, the latter wishes to use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Council of the European Union the following issue.

The Czech Republic officially notifies the countries which despite of the fact the Czech Republic being the Member State of the EU since 1 May 2004 still apply the unilateral visa regime to the Czech citizens.

By this note on the basis of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visa when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, the Czech Republic notifies the Commonwealth of Australia as the country which unilaterally applies the visa regime to the nationals of the Czech Republic.

As the visa reciprocity issue is considered to be a very sensitive problem on political level the Czech Republic believes that the appropriate measures will be taken to assure that all EU citizens on one side and the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia on the other side will enjoy the same equal and reciprocal regime when crossing the respective borders.

The Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Council of the European Union the assurances of its highest consideration and friendship.

(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 334/63

Communication relating to the revision of the financial provisions applicable to the general budget

(2005/C 334/12)

The Steering Board of the European Defence Agency has decided on 16 December 2005, to modify Title III (Procurement) of the financial provisions applicable to the general budget of the Agency (Annex to Decision 2004/658/PESC of the Council, of 13 September 2004, OJ L 300 of 25.9.2004, p. 52). The revised text is published in the following address:

http://www.eda.eu.int/procurement/procurement.htm