ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/6

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C-3/37.980 — Souris/Topps

(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)

(2006/C 303/05)

The draft decision in this case gives rise to the following observations:

The case was initiated following a complaint by S.A.R.L La Souris Bleue on 3 October 2000.

On 16 June 2003 the Commission addressed the Statement of Objections to The Topps Company Inc (‘Topps USA’), Topps Europe Limited, Topps International Limited, Topps UK Limited, and Topps Italia SRL.

The addressees were given two months to reply to the Statement of Objections.

On 25 June and 24 July 2003 I received requests from the legal representatives of all the companies concerned for an extension of the deadline. They have been granted an extension of one month.

The European subsidiaries were given access to the file on 3 July 2003. Topps USA was given access to the file on 13 August 2003.

All addressees replied on 18 September 2003 and requested an oral hearing pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98, which took place on 23 October 2003.

The complainant did not request to participate to the oral hearing.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard have been respected in the present case. The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.
(2)

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 75/5

Notifications by the Republic of Bulgaria concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2007/C 75/03)

Brussels, 13 February 2007

File No 429

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and in accordance with Article 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism states that nationals of the Republic of Bulgaria are subject to visa requirements for the following third countries listed in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001: Australia, Bolivia, Brunei, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Singapore and USA.

Costa Rica and Malaysia exempt Bulgarian nationals from visa requirements for a period of thirty days which cannot be regarded as full reciprocity.

The Republic of Bulgaria has signed non-visa agreements with Israel and Paraguay which are not in force owing to on-going ratification procedures. Bulgarian nationals are still subject to visa requirements for those two countries, which is also an element of temporary non-reciprocity.

A Note Verbale with an identical text is being sent to the Commission of the European Union.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria would take this opportunity of renewing to the Council of the European Union the assurances of its highest consideration.

Brussels, 26 February 2007

File No 429A

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union presents its compliments to the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and, in addition to the Note Verbale by the Permanent Representation No 429 dated 13 February 2007 and in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation No 851/2005 supplementing Regulation No 539/2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism, states that as from 11 March 2007 Bulgarian nationals are exempt from visa requirements concerning transit and short-term stays in the United States of Mexico for a period of up to 90 days within six months of the date of first entry.

A Note Verbale with an identical text has been sent to the Commission of the European Union.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Bulgaria would take this opportunity of renewing to the Council of the European Union the assurances of its highest consideration.

(1) These notifications are 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 58/11

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4000 — Inco/Falconbridge

(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)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 58/04)

Written procedure

On 20 January 2006, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Inco Limited (‘Inco’, Canada) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Falconbridge Limited (‘Falconbridge’, Canada) by way of a public bid announced on 11 October 2005.

At the end of the first phase of the investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. The Commission opened phase II of the case on 24 February 2006.

The Commission issued a Statement of Objections on 8 May 2006, to which Inco responded on 22 May 2006.

No access to file issues have been raised with the Hearing Officer in this case. I have not been asked to verify the objectivity of the market tests.

An oral hearing was held at the parties' request on 29 May 2006.

Involvement of third parties

I admitted eight undertakings as third parties according to Article 11(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (‘Implementing Regulation’). With a view to informing them of the nature and subject matter of the procedure, pursuant to Article 16 of the Implementing Regulation, they were sent a non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections, and only two attended the oral hearing.

In the light of the commitments proposed and having analysed the results of the market test, the draft decision concludes that the proposed concentration is compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard of all participants to the present proceeding have been respected.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purposes of assessing the present operation, the relevant geographic markets are: in the natural gas sector: a) the market for storage, or alternatively the Danish market for flexibility of natural gas, for Denmark is Danish; b) the market for storage or alternatively the Swedish market for flexibility of natural gas for Sweden is Swedish or alternatively Swedish-Danish in scope; c) the wholesale market for natural gas for Denmark is Danish in scope; d) the wholesale market for natural gas for Sweden is Swedish or alternatively Swedish-Danish in scope; e) the market for the supply of natural gas to Danish central CHPs is Danish; f) the market for the supply of natural gas to Swedish central CHPs is Swedish or alternatively Swedish-Danish in scope; g) the market or markets for the supply of natural gas to large industrial customers and to decentralized CHPs is Danish in scope); h) the market or markets for the supply of natural gas to small business customers and to households is/are Danish-national or Danish-regional in scope; in the electricity sector: i) the wholesale market of electricity is East Danish and West Danish or wider; if ancillary services constitute one or more relevant markets then the geographic scope of such market(s) is East Danish and West Danish; j) the market for financial derivatives of electricity encompasses the Nord Pool area if excluding CfDs; if CfDs constitute a separate market then the relevant markets are the individual NordPool areas, i.e. East Danish and West Danish; k) the retail market for electricity sales to metered (business) customers is Danish in scope; l) the retail market for electricity sales to non-metered (predominantly household) customers is Danish-national or Danish-regional in scope; for other markets: m) the market for district heating is local; n) the scope of the geographic market for fly ash production can be left open; o) the market for CO2 trading is EU-wide.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/17

Notice from the Government of Romania 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

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 194/11)

In accordance with Article 10 of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, Romania hereby notifies the European Commission that the only competent authority in this field, as designated by Law No 238/2004 on oil, is the National Agency for Mineral Resources, a specialised body with legal personality, under the authority of the Government.

Romania hereby notifies all interested persons that for the granting of authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the provisions and criteria within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 94/22/EC for assessing bids and the technical and financial capacities of the bidders are laid down in the Implementing Rules for Law No 238/2004 on oil, approved by Government Decision No 2075/2004, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 1170 of 10 December 2004, Part I, amended and supplemented by Government Decision No 350/2007, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 272 of 24 April 2007, Part I.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressee of the decision, in particular with reference to imputation of liability to TKS for the behaviour of TS-AG.
5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in view of the commitments offered, the preliminary assessment and the observations submitted by interested third parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 290/9

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3975 — Cargill/Degussa

(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 290/08)

On 21 October 2005, the parties notified the transaction to Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), by which the undertaking Cargill would acquire the food ingredients business of the German company Degussa AG.

On 23 November 2005, the parties submitted a remedies proposal, thus extending the deadline for the end of the first phase investigation to 14 December 2005.

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 decided to initiate proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 14 December 2005.

Key documents were provided for review by the parties in accordance with the best practices on the conduct of EC Merger control proceedings on 19 December 2005 and 17 January 2006.

Following an in-depth investigation, the Commission services concluded that the potential competition concerns identified in the Article 6(1)(c) decision for the relevant markets were removed. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the parties.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/10

Final report of the Hearing Officer

(Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner)

(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 6/06)

On 4 April 2006, the Commission received a request for referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Merger Regulation), which was transmitted to the Member States. No Member State or EEA country competent to examine the concentration under its national competition law (Finland, Sweden, Poland, Germany and Norway) expressed its disagreement as regards the requested 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 23 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which Metso Corporation Oy (Metso) acquires sole control, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, of parts of the undertaking Aker Kvaerner ASA (Aker Kvaerner), namely its pulping and power business, by way of purchase of shares and assets.

After examining the notification the Commission found that, even taking into account commitments entered into by Metso on 24 July and modified on 27 July 2006, the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning with the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, on 11 August 2006, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 6 November 2006, Metso offered new commitments with a view to render the concentration compatible with the common market. These commitments were subsequently modified on 8 November 2006.

In view of the modified commitments and taking into account the result of an in-depth market investigation, the relevant Commission services considered, subject to full compliance with the commitments offered, that the serious doubts had been removed and that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the parties.

No queries or submission have been made to the Hearing Officer by the parties or any other third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission in considering that the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment should be fixed at EUR 1,5 million per day of non-compliance, within the framework of the limit fixed by the Article 24(1) Decision (maximum of EUR 2 million per day), thus making a total of EUR 280,5 million.
4.

(a) The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances. A minority abstains. (b) The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no attenuating circumstances. A minority abstains.
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2), 8(1) and 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
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 EC Merger Regulation and that it can be deemed to have a community dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of that Regulation.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's findings regarding the geographical scope of the above identified product markets relating to: (a) carbonless paper (leaving open whether the geographical scope should be national or EEA-wide whether the product market should be subdivided or not); (b) industrial tracing paper (leaving open whether the geographical scope should be EEA-wide or worldwide); (c) graphic tracing paper (leaving open whether the geographical scope should be EEA-wide or worldwide); (d) premium fine paper with a potential subdivision of premium letterhead as with a geographical EEA-wide scope; (e) paper distribution (leaving open whether the geographical scope should be national or EEA-wide whether the product market should be subdivided or not).
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the markets to be considered are: (a) the markets for air transport of cargo on a uni-directional basis: — between continents for transport of cargo between Europe and North America, — between Europe and specific countries for transport of cargo between Europe and South American, Greater Caribbean, Far Eastern and African countries; (b) the market for the supply of long-haul air transport services to end customers, subdivided on the basis of point of origin/point of destination (‘O&D’) pairs: — whereby the point of origin includes the airport of Amsterdam and, at least with respect to flights to Punta Cana, Cancun, Havana, Curacao and Aruba, but possibly also with respect to flights to Vancouver, Toronto and Miami, also the airports of Düsseldorf and Brussels, — and whereby the point of destination is likely to be limited to each of the above-mentioned destinations, but possibly extends to all long-haul destinations in the Greater Caribbean region or even all long-haul destinations worldwide; (c) the market for the wholesale supply of airline seats to tour operators comprising flights connecting the airports of Amsterdam, Düsseldorf and Brussels to all long-haul destinations worldwide, which might have to be subdivided on a route-by-route basis in accordance with the O&D pairs identified in question 2(b) with respect to the market for the supply of long-haul air transport services to end customers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/19

Extract from the Decision concerning Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions

2009/C 103/03

EXTENSION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATORS OF KAUPTHING BANK LUXEMBOURG S.A.

By judgment delivered in open court on 2 April 2009, the Second Chamber of the District Court of Luxembourg, sitting in commercial matters, having heard the submissions, in closed session, of the administrators and the representative of the limited liability company Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A., the representatives of the Financial Sector Supervisory Commission and the representative of the public prosecutor, supplements the judgments delivered by the District Court of Luxembourg on 9 and 31 October 2008 and the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal of Luxembourg on 28 January 2009 as follows:

‘The duration of the stay of payment granted to the limited liability company Kaupthing Bank Luxembourg S.A. is extended until 9 June 2009.’

An application may not be made by the party or by a third party to set aside this judgment.

The Administrators

PricewaterhouseCoopers S.àr.l., represented by Emmanuelle Caruel-Henniaux, and Franz Fayot, lawyer.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.
7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the lack of evidence of an infringement of the rights of defence that would prevent the finding of an infringement.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment to be imposed on Microsoft for failure to comply with its obligation to make Interoperability Information available to interested undertakings on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, pursuant to Article 5(a) of Commission Decision 2007/53/EC of 24 March 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/8

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4874 — Itema/BarcoVision (1)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 225/05

On 20 February 2008, Itema Holding S.p.A., Italy, submitted a notification to the Commission of its intended acquisition of control within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 over the whole of BarcoVision Division of Barco NV (Belgium) by way of purchase of shares.

Upon examination, the Commission concluded that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. On 14 April 2008, the Commission opened an in-depth investigation into this proposed concentration.

Upon request, access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 16 April 2008, in accordance with paragraph 45 of Competition DG's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings.

The Commission stopped the clock in the in-depth investigation on 3 June 2008, effective as from 26 May 2008, after the target company failed to respond adequately to an information request. The clock was re-started on 9 June 2008.

On the basis of the additional evidence gathered during the in-depth phase of the investigation, the Commission services concluded that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market, 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.

Brussels, 22 July 2008. 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).
5.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union according to Article 14(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the infringement of Article 7(1) of the Merger Regulation constitutes a case of qualified negligence that cannot be ignored.
10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration 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. A minority abstain.