ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Final report of the hearing officer in case COMP/38.044/D3 - NDC/IMS

(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 250/08)

The draft decision in the above-mentioned case gives rise to the following observations.

On 3 July 2001 the Commission adopted an interim measures decision on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation No 17 of 1962 addressed to IMS Health ("IMS"). The case had been initiated following a complaint lodged by NDC Health ("NDC").

On 15 April 2003 the Commission sent letters to IMS, NDC and AzyX Deutschland GmbH ("AzyX") (AzyX being the only other competitor to IMS operating at the time of the Commission's decision), requesting each of them to supply certain information requested by the Commission services, and also inviting them to submit observations on whether or not the Commission should withdraw its interim measures decision on the ground of lack of urgency. These letters were sent further to contacts between the Commission services and IMS and NDC which took place, in particular, following the ruling on appeal of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court on the merits of IMS's breach of copyright and unfair action against a subsidiary of NDC. AzyX responded to the Commission's letter on 9 May. IMS and NDC responded on 12 May.

In the light of the above, I consider the rights to be heard have been respected in this case.

Brussels, 1 August 2003.

Karen Williams
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/JV.55 — Hutchison/RCPM/ECT (pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision C(2001) 1461/3 of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition procedures) (Text with EEA relevance)



Official Journal C 210 , 05/09/2003 P. 0013 - 0013



Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/JV.55 - Hutchison/RCPM/ECT (pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision C(2001) 1461/3 of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition procedures) (2003/C 210/04) (Text with EEA relevance) The draft Decision does not give rise to particular observations with regard to the parties' right to be heard. An Oral Hearing was not requested. Neither the parties to the proposed merger, nor any interested third party indicated problems of a procedural nature. The market test which was carried out in order to assess the impact on competition of the commitments proposed by the notifying parties met the requirements of objectivity both with regard to the selection of respondents and the methodology used. Brussels, 18 June 2001. Helmuth Schröter
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/C2/37.398 - UEFA Champions League

(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 269/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision in this case gives rise to the following observations on the right to be heard:

On 19 February 1999 UEFA (Union des Associations Européennes de Football) notified to the Commission its Regulation concerning the joint selling of the commercial rights to the UEFA Champions League.

On 19 July 2001 a statement of objections was sent to UEFA. UEFA responded on 16 November 2001 following an extension of the deadline to reply. No oral hearing took place in this case. A non-confidential version of the statement of objections was sent to a number of interested third parties in this case. Their observations in non confidential form were sent to UEFA.

Following discussions with the relevant Commission service, UEFA notified a new joint selling arrangement to the Commission on 13 May 2002.

On 17 August 2002 the Commission published a notice pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation 17/62 setting out the main elements of the new arrangement, stating its intention to take a favourable view on this arrangement and inviting comments. Comments were received from a number of third parties as well as the German National Competition Authority. Further modifications were subsequently made to the agreement.

On 5 May 2003 the Commission informed UEFA of its intention to attach a condition to the proposed exemption decision, attaching the condition proposed, and inviting UEFA to comment. UEFA responded on 15 May 2003.

In the light of the above I conclude that the rights to be heard in this case have been respected.

Brussels, 15 July 2003.

Karen Williams
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2650 - Haniel/Cementbouw/JV (CVK)

(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 261/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

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

The concentration in question was notified to the Commission by Franz Haniel & Cie GmbH ("Haniel") and Cementbouw Handel Industrie BV ("Cementbouw").

On 25 April 2002, the Commission sent out a statement of objections based on Article 8(3) and 8(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 406/89 (the "Merger Regulation") to these parties and, exceptionally, in the light of the specific facts of the case, also to Coöperatieve Verkoop en Produktievereniging van Kalkzandsteen producenten ("CVK"), the joint venture jointly controlled by the parties. In this way, CVK was granted the opportunity to make full use of its rights of defence given that it expressed the view to the Commission that it is not controlled by Haniel and Cementbouw.

Haniel, Cementbouw and CVK each replied to the statement of objections (Haniel on 11 May 2002 and the others parties on 13 May 2002). At the request of the three parties, an oral hearing was held on 16 May 2002, in which one interested third party also participated.

Subsequent to commitments offered by Haniel and Cementbouw, the Commission proposes a draft decision based on Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation (clearance with conditions and obligations). The draft decision is addressed to Haniel, Cementbouw and CVK.

In the light of the outcome as described above, I conclude that the rights of defence have been fully respected. The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

Brussels, 14 June 2002.

Karen Williams
Corrigendum to communication from Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social Security for Migrant Workers - Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

(Official Journal of the European Union C 30 of 4 February 2004)

(2004/C 36/10)

On page 6:

for:

Application period: April, May and June 2004

>TABLE>

read:

Application period: April, May and June 2004

>TABLE>
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at its 100th meeting on 19 September 2001 and continuing on 28 September 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to case COMP/M.2283 - Schneider/Legrand

(2004/C 86/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of the Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission with the definitions of

(a) products markets;

(b) geographic markets.

4. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation will create a dominant position on the markets identified by the Commission. A minority does not agree.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation will strengthen a dominant position on the markets identified by the Commission.

6. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings submitted by the parties on 14 September 2001 are insufficient to solve the competition problems identified by the Commission. A minority is not in agreement.

7. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings submitted by the parties on 24 September 2001 are insufficient to solve the comptetition problems identified by the Commission. A minority is not in agreement and another minority abstains.

8. The majority of the Advisory Committee considers that the remedies of 24 September 2001 ar not to be qualified as new undertakings. A minority thinks the opposite.

9. The majority of the Advisory Committee considers that the remedies of 24 September 2001 should to be qualified as modifications of the undertakings in the meaning of the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98. A minority thinks the opposite.

Another minority abstains because, according to it, paragraph 43 of the abovementioned Notice does not comply with Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98. This minority also considers that:

- remedies submitted beyond the 3-months period provided for by Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 can only bring clarifications and cannot make substantial changes;

- substantial modifications are only possible when the parties require exceptional circumstances as provided for by Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98.

10. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has to be declared incompatible with the Common Market and with the functioning of the EEA agreement. A minority does not agree.

11. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the points raised during the discussion.

12. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion to the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2947 - Verbund/Energie Allianz

(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 79/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(This text cancels and replaces the text published in Official Journal C 69 of 19 March 2004, page 6)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations:

The proposed concentration was notified on 20 December 2002.

On 4 February 2003 the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation, and the parties were given access to the most important submissions on which the Commission based its serious doubts. This is an important feature of the transparency policy which the Commission is currently putting in place.

On 10 April 2003 the Commission sent out a statement of objections and the parties were given access to the file. No issues have been raised with me in this respect, either by the Commission services or by the parties. The parties replied to the statement of objections on 25 April and requested a formal hearing, which has held on 29 April.

On 7 May 2003 the parties submitted proposals for remedies, which were then market tested. The objectivity of the market test has not been questioned by the parties. They then presented modified commitments. This enabled a draft clearance decision to be proposed, subject to conditions. In fact, one objection was dropped by the Commission services after having received the reply to the statement of objections and following the hearing.

Neither the parties nor the third parties have raised objections as to the conduct of the proceedings.

The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. I therefore consider that the rights to be heard in this case have been respected.

Done in Brussels, 3 June 2003.

Serge Durande
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/4

FINAL REPORT OF THE HEARING OFFICER IN CASE COMP/38.284/D2 (AIR FRANCE/ALITALIA)

(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 305/04)

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

On 13 November 2001, Air France and Alitalia, notified various agreements to the Commission seeking negative clearance under Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 or alternatively exemption under Article 5 of the same Regulation.

A summary of the application was published on 8 May 2002 in the Official Journal of the European Communities inviting third parties and the Member States to submit their comments to the Commission within 30 days in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87.

On 1 July 2002, the Commission notified the parties pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 that there were serious doubts as to the applicability of Articles 81(3) of the Treaty to the notified agreements.

After discussions with the Commission services, the parties proposed commitments that were published on 9 December 2003 pursuant to Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87, inviting all interested third parties to submit their observations.

Several airlines and the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading made comments on the proposed remedies and the parties accepted to improve their commitments, with the result that the competition concerns of the Commission services have been removed.

I therefore conclude that the rights to be heard have been respected in the present case.
3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the Ethical Standard No 2 has as its object the restriction of competition within the common market, within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the Treaty as a result of which it is not required to define the market or demonstrate that the decision has effectively restricted competition.
2.

The Advisory Committee unanimously agrees with the Commission that — in the light of the commitments offered by the undertakings — there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the legal assessment made by the Commission, notably with the legal qualification of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/12

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

(2005/C 251/18)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic Slovenia to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the EU and has the honour to notify that Slovene nationals, with respect to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 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 the requirement, as regards reciprocity mechanism on 24 June 2005, are subject to a visa requirement by the following third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001:

1. Australia,

2. Brunei.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic Slovenia to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Council of the EU 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 251/7

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

(2005/C 251/10)

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 the Federative Republic of Brazil 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.

Pursuant to Article 2 of EU 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, Latvia would like to notify the Council and the Commission that the Federative Republic of Brazil continue to apply unilateral visa regime to the citizens of the Republic of Latvia.

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 the Federative Republic of Brazil 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 322/17

Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers

(2005/C 322/09)

On 30 November 2005, in accordance with Article 4 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Tribunal decided, for an initial period, from the day of publication in the OJ of the decision of the President of the Court of Justice recording that the Civil Service Tribunal has been constituted in accordance with the law to 30 September 2006, as follows:

— the First Chamber shall hear all cases, with the exception of those principally concerning questions of recruitment, assessment/promotion and termination of service, which shall be heard by the Second Chamber;

— a number of cases shall be assigned to the Third Chamber, regardless of the subject-matter involved, at regular intervals to be determined at a meeting of the full Tribunal;
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant geographic markets as stated in the draft decision, notably with regard to:

— acetic acid,

— VAM,

— acetic anhydride,

— PVOH,

as being of worldwide dimension instead of limited to the EEA.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the proceedings opened with a formal statement of objections under article 82 of the Treaty in January 2003, can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of EC Regulation No 1/2003 which will make commitments binding on De Beers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 149/4

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.3687 — Johnson&Johnson/Guidant

(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)

(2006/C 149/03)

On 15 March 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking Johnson & Johnson, USA (‘J&J’) acquires control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Guidant Corporation, USA(‘Guidant’) by way of purchase of shares

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. On 22 April 2005, the Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

A statement of objections was sent to J&J on 20 June 2005. The following day, access to the Commission's file was granted. J&J was asked to reply by 27 June 2005. This deadline was complied with.

The parties did not request the opportunity to develop their arguments in a formal oral hearing.

Edwards Lifesciences SA, Sorin SpA, Abott Laboratories and Medtronic Inc were admitted as interested third parties according to Article 18(4) of the Merger Regulation. They were informed of the nature and subject matter of the case, as appropriate.

On 13 July 2005, J&J offered commitments in order to resolve the competition concerns identified in the Statement of Objections. A market test of the commitments was carried out. I have not been asked to verify the objectivity of the market enquiry. The parties did not request further access to the Commission's file, in particular the results of the market test.

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.

I consider that the rights to be heard of all participants to the present proceeding have been respected.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's view as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies and new owners of the companies/groups concerned.
6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the closure of the proceedings against certain companies which were addressees of the Statement of Objections but not addressees of the draft decision.