ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/28

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

(Notice regarding an application to extend the exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, designated the ‘Claracq licence’)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 109/15)

By request of 27 November 2006, Celtique Energie Petroleum Ltd., a company with registered offices at Saffrey Champness, Lion House, Red Lion Street, London, WC1R 4GB (UK), applied for an extension of the exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, designated the ‘Claracq licence’, in an area of approximately 102 km2 forming part of the department of Pyrénées Atlantiques.

The perimeter of the area covered by this extension is made up of the meridian and parallel arcs successively joining the vertices defined below by their geographical coordinates, the original meridian being that of Paris.

Vertices Longitude Latitude A 3.10 degrees W 48.20 degrees N B 3.10 degrees W 48.13 degrees N C 2.90 degrees W 48.13 degrees N D 2.90 degrees W 48.20 degrees N

Submission of applications

The initial applicant and competing applicants must prove that they meet the requirements for obtaining the licence, as specified in Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Decree No 2006-648 of 2 June 2006 concerning mining rights and underground storage rights (French Official Journal of 22 April 1995).

Interested companies may, within a period of ninety days of the publication of this notice, submit a competing application in accordance with the procedure summarised in the ‘Notice regarding the granting of mining rights for hydrocarbons in France ’published in Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 of 30 December 1994, p. 11, and established by Decree No 2006-648 concerning mining rights and underground storage rights. Competing applications must be sent to the Minister responsible for mines at the address below. Decisions on the initial application and competing applications will be taken within two years of the date on which the French authorities received the initial application, i.e. by 28 November 2008 at the latest.

Conditions and requirements regarding performance of the activity and cessation thereof

Applicants are referred to Articles 79 and 79(1) of the Mining Code and to Decree No 2006-649 of 2 June 2006 on mining operations, underground storage and the regulations governing them (French Official Journal of 3 June 2006).

Further information can be obtained from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry (Directorate-General for Energy and Raw Materials, Directorate for Energy and Mineral Resources, Bureau of Mining Legislation, 61, boulevard Vincent Auriol, Télédoc 133, F-75703 Paris Cedex 13 (telephone: (33) 144 97 23 02, fax: (33) 144 97 05 70).

The abovementioned laws and regulations can be consulted at

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 150/9

Communication from the Kingdom of Belgium in connection with 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 150/07)

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 (1), the Kingdom of Belgium hereby communicates to the European Commission the following list of competent authorities for applications relating to areas located within the Flemish Region.

— All applications for licences to explore for and produce oil and gas must be submitted to the following authority pursuant to the Decree of the Flemish Government of 23 July 1997 on the form and procedure for examining applications for licences to explore for and produce oil and gas: Vlaamse Overheid (Flemish Government) Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie Afdeling Land en Bodembescherming, Ondergrond, Natuurlijke Rijkdommen Koning Albert II-laan 20, bus 20 B-1000 Brussels

— The Flemish Minister responsible for natural resources will take a decision on any such licence applications.

— Appeals against decisions taken by the Flemish Minister responsible for natural resources may be lodged with the Flemish Government.

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.
3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by Fiat, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 290/11

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4504 — SFR/Télé 2 France

(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 290/10)

On 28 November 2006, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration by which SFR SA (‘SFR’), an undertaking jointly controlled by Vivendi SA (‘Vivendi’) and Vodafone Group plc (‘Vodafone’), would acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the Internet access and fixed telephony business of the undertaking Télé 2 France (‘Télé 2’, a subsidiary of the Télé 2 group) by way of a purchase of shares.

By Commission decision of 11 December 2006, the notification was declared incomplete. On 29 January 2007, SFR provided additional information. By letter dated 5 February 2007, the Commission informed SFR that the notification could be considered to be complete as of that date. In acordance with Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004, notification of the transaction became effective on 29 January 2007.

After a preliminary examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the transaction as notified fell under the Merger Regulation and expressed serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. Consequently, it decided on 19 March 2007 to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

SFR was given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules for merger cases, in the form of non-confidential versions of third parties' replies to the phase-one requests for information; these were provided to SFR on 30 March 2007.

Following an in-depth market investigation, the Commission took the view that the notified transaction could result in a significant weakening of competitive pressure on all the pay-TV markets in France.

In order to address the risks to competition, SFR and Vivendi submitted an initial set of commitment proposals on 26 February 2007. Having been informed that the Commission deemed this first set of proposals insufficient, they submitted further proposals on 14 March and 26 April 2007. In the light of the findings of a market survey carried out by the Commission, they then submitted the final version of the commitments on 13 June 2007.

Provided that SFR and Vivendi fully adhere to the commitments submitted on 13 June 2007, the Commission has concluded that the proposed transaction will not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part thereof, in particular by creating or strengthening a dominant position. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the parties.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission, as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, or rewarding cooperation outside its scope.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/9

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4731 — Google/DoubleClick

(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 184/05)

On 21 September 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (‘Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Google Inc. (‘Google’, USA) would acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking DoubleClick Inc. (‘DoubleClick’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

Upon examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified acquisition with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement with regard to the market for online advertising. The Commission also found that the commitments proposed by the notifying party on 19 October 2007 were not sufficient to clearly rule out the serious doubts identified by the Commission during the phase I investigation. Accordingly, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 13 November 2007.

Access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 16, 19 and 20 November 2007, in accordance with paragraph 45 of DG Competition's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings.

On the basis of the additional evidence gathered during the phase II investigation, the Commission concluded that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part thereof and is therefore compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party.

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

Brussels, 3 March 2008. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 237/7

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4854 — TomTom/Tele Atlas

(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 237/11)

On 22 October 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which TomTom NV (‘TomTom’) would acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Tele Atlas NV (‘Tele Atlas’) by way of a public bid.

After examination of the notification, the Commission concluded on 28 November 2007 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 3 and 12 December 2007, in accordance with paragraph 45 of DG Competition's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings.

The Commission sent a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) to TomTom on 29 February 2008. Tele Atlas also received a copy of the SO. TomTom was granted access to file upon issuance of the SO. TomTom and Tele Atlas replied jointly on 17 March 2008. The parties did not request a formal oral hearing.

I granted requests from eight undertakings to be admitted to the proceedings as interested third parties within the meaning of Article 18(4) of the Merger Regulation and Article 11(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004. TomTom was granted access to non-confidential versions of written comments submitted by four of the third parties.

As a result of the in-depth investigation, the Commission has concluded that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it.

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

Brussels, 6 May 2008. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219/6

View of the representative of the EFTA States concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra

Meeting on 20 March 2006 of the EC Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions

(2008/C 219/08)

1. The representative of the EFTA States agrees with the Commission's conclusion on the relevant market: (a) the product market; (b) the geographical market.

2. The representative of the EFTA States agrees with the Commission's conclusion that Tomra enjoyed a dominant position on the reverse vending machine market in the five countries concerned.

3. The representative of the EFTA States agrees with the Commission on the conclusion that Tomra's practices had an object and effect to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.

4. The representative of the EFTA States agrees with the Commission's conclusion that Tomra's practices have been capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States of the EU and Contracting parties of the EEA Agreement.

5. The representative of the EFTA States agrees with the Commission's conclusion on the gravity of the infringement.

6. The representative of the EFTA States agrees with the Commission's conclusion on the duration of the infringement.

7. The representative of the EFTA States recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have participated in agreements and/or concerted practices and/or decisions of associations of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 145/11

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4980 — ABF/GBI Business (1)

2009/C 145/08

On 22 February 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘EC Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Associated British Foods plc (‘ABF’, United Kingdom) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation, control over a number of subsidiaries and assets of GBI Holding BV, certain assets and stakes of GB Ingredients BV and DSM Bakery Ingredients BV (together ‘the GBI Business’, the Netherlands) by way of purchase of assets and shares.

In order for the Commission to be able to dismiss any possible serious doubts, ABF submitted a remedy proposal on 26 March 2008.

After examination of the notification and market testing of the remedy proposal, the Commission concluded on 16 April 2008 that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’). The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the EC Merger Regulation.

Upon request, ABF was given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules for merger cases, in the form of a selection of non-confidential versions of third parties' replies to the phase-one requests for information; these were provided to the notifying party on 23 April and 30 April 2008.

On 10 July 2008, the Commission sent an Article 11(3) decision to ABF and subsequently suspended the time limits effective 26 June 2008. This suspension ended on 16 July 2008.

On 10 July 2008, ABF offered a draft alternative remedy with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market and committed to pursue both alternatives in parallel. A new draft and a final version of the commitments were submitted on 15 July and 23 July 2008, respectively.

The Commission has concluded that the commitments, as submitted on 23 July 2008 would remove the significant impediment to effective competition in the compressed yeast markets in Portugal and Spain. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the notifying party and the concentration is to be declared compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Merger Regulation, subject to compliance with the commitments in the annex to the decision.

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

Brussels, 15 September 2008. Michael ALBERS

(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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/3

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4525 — Kronospan/Constantia

(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)

2009/C 134/03

On 4 May 2007, Kronospan Holding GmbH (‘Kronospan’, Germany) sent a notification to the Commission of an intended acquisition of Sprela GmbH (‘Sprela’, Germany), Falco CC (‘Falco’, Hungary) and of the raw and coated particleboard division of FunderMax GmbH (‘FunderMax’, Austria) from Constantia Industries AG.

Upon examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified acquisition with the common market with regard to two product markets: (i) the market for raw particleboard and (ii) the market for coated particleboard, and decided to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on 14 June 2007.

Access to key documents was provided to the notifying party on 20 June 2007, in accordance with paragraph 45 of DG Competition's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings.

On 12 July 2007, the parties proposed a modification to the notified transaction in order to remedy the serious concerns identified by the Commission to the effect that Kronospan will only acquire control in Sprela and Falco, whereas FunderMax will be retained by Constantia. The buyer also committed not to buy FunderMax for a certain period of time. The parties submitted a revised proposal for commitments on 31 July 2007.

The market test conducted by the Commission in the period between May and July 2007 confirmed that the proposed modifications remove the Commission's serious doubts as to the compatibility of the (modified) transaction with the common market and the EEA agreement.

The Commission decided therefore not to issue a Statement of Objections in the present case.

The Parties did not refer to me any concerns in terms of due process.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard of all participants to the present proceeding have been respected.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the factors that were taken into account when calculating the level of the fine for Electrabel SA pursuant to Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1). A minority abstain.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by Microsoft 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 132/19

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of 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

2010/C 132/08

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block T1 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245). The area in question is to be designated block segment F13b.

With reference to the Directive mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block T1 of the Dutch continental shelf.

Block T1 covers an area of 1,3 km2.

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to:

The Minister for Economic Affairs For the attention of J.C. De Groot, Director for the Energy Market ALP/562 Bezuidenhoutseweg 30 Postbus 20101 2500 EC Den Haag NEDERLAND

Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken no later than 12 months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained by calling Mr E.J. Hoppel on the following telephone number: +31 703797088.