ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Opinion

of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at its 90th meeting on 16 January 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2097 - SCA/Metsä Tissue

(2002/C 52/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration with a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1(3) and Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation, and that also it constitutes a case of cooperation under the EEA Agreement.

2. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant product markets as stated in the draft decision. A minority is of the opinion that branded and private label consumer products constitute one single relevant product market.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant geographic markets as stated in the draft decision.

4. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration as notified would result in the creation of a dominant position in the markets for branded consumer toilet tissue and kitchen towels in Denmark, as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Merger Regulation.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration as notified would result:

(a) in the creation of a dominant position in the markets for branded consumer toilet tissue and kitchen towels in Sweden and Norway;

(b) in the creation of a duoplistic dominant position in the markets for branded consumer toilet tissue and kitchen towels in Finland;

(c) in the creation of a dominant position in the markets for private label consumer toilet tissue and kitchen towels in Sweden and Denmark;

(d) in the creation of a dominant position the the markets for AFH toilet tissue, hand wiping tissue and general wiping tissue in Sweden, Norway and Denmark;

(e) in the creation of a dominant position in the AFH health care tissue markets in Sweden and Norway; and

(f) in the strengthening of a dominant position in the markets for AFH toilet tissue, hand-wiping tissue and general wiping tissue products in Finland;

as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Merger Regulation.

6. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the parties were not adequate to solve the problems identified by the Commission.

7. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared incompatible with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

8. The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take into account all the points raised during the discussion, especially those with regard to the definition of the geographical markets.

9. The Advisory Committee agrees with the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/36.041 - Michelin

(2002/C 129/07)

The draft Decision does not give rise to any particular observation with regard to the procedure, which took a normal course. By specific measures the Hearing Officer ensured the protection of Michelin's business secrets but also the intervention of Bandag, a competitor of Michelin, as a third party both in the written and the oral phase of the proceedings. Neither Michelin nor Bandag complained about the manner in which they had been heard. The draft Decision contains no objection in respect of which Michelin has not been afforded the opportunity of making known its views.

Done at Brussels on 12 June 2001.

Helmuth Schröter
Opinion

of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 75th meeting on 28/29 February 2000 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to case COMP/M.1663 - Alcan/Alusuisse

(2002/C 82/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the product market definition given in the draft decision concerning the following markets:

(a) alumina trihydrate (ATH);

(b) lithographic sheet;

(c) aluminium semi-rigid containers;

(d) aluminium aerosol cans;

(e) aluminium flexible packaging for cheese.

2. The Committee agrees with the geographic market definition given in the draft decision concerning the following markets:

(a) alumina trihydrate (ATH);

(b) lithographic sheet;

(c) aluminium semi-rigid containers;

(d) aluminium aerosol cans;

(e) aluminium flexible packaging for cheese.

3. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration would lead to a dominant position of Alcan/Alusuisse in the markets (a) and (c).

4. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration would lead to a dominant position of Alcan/Alusuisse/Pechiney in the markets (d) and (e), if the Alcan/Pechiney concentration is declared compatible with the common market.

5. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration would result in the creation of a duopolistic dominant position of Alcan/Alusuisse and VAW in the market (b), also because of their participation in the joint venture firm Norf.

6. The Committee agrees with the Commission that, after the concentration, effective competition would be significantly impeded in the above-mentioned markets, so that the concentration is incompatible with the common market.

7. The Committee provisionally takes the view that, subject to substantial improvements, in particular with regard to lithographic sheets and semi-rigid containers, the undertakings proposed by the parties could remove the concerns raised in the case and make the concentration 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 Communities.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2533 - BP/E.ON

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision (C(2001) 1461/3 final) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition procedures)

(2002/C 246/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision does not give rise to any observations on the right to be heard, neither with regard to the parties to the concentration nor with regard to interested third parties.

Done at Brussels on 7 December 2001.

Serge Durande
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at the 103rd meeting on 9 November 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to case COMP/M.2498 - UPM-Kymmene/Haindl, and case COMP/M.2499 - Norske Skog/Parenco/Walsum

(2002/C 206/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentrations constitute concentrations within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there is a single product market for newsprint.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there is a product market for wood-containing magazine paper - i.e. supercalendered (SC), coated mechanical reels (CMR), which includes LWC, MWC and HWC and machine-finished coated (MFC).

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there is a product market for wood-free magazine paper (WFC).

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that wood-free magazine paper and wood-containing magazine paper constitute two different relevant product markets.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for newsprint is not wider than the EEA and Switzerland.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for magazine paper is the EEA.

8. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentrations are unlikely to create a collective dominant position in the market for newsprint. A minority disagrees.

9. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentrations are unlikely to create a collective dominant position in the market for wood-containing magazine paper. A minority disagrees.

10. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentrations should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement. A minority disagrees.

11. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all points raised during the meeting.

12. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 106th meeting on 6 February 2002 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2495 - Haniel/Fels

(2003/C 97/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Art 3(1)b of the Merger Regulation and the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article 1(2) Merger Regulation.

2. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product markets as "building materials for load-bearing walls" and "building materials for non load-bearing walls". A minority refrains.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic markets contained in the draft decision.

4. A majority of the Advisory Committee shares the Commission's view that Haniel controls the Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Produktievereniging van Kalkzandsteenproducenten (CVK cooperative). A minority disagrees.

5. A majority of the Advisory Committee shares the Commission's view that Haniel holds a dominant position on the market for wall-building materials for load-bearing walls in the Netherlands. A minority disagrees.

6. A majority of the Advisory Committee shares the Commission's view that Haniel's dominant position on the market for "wall-building materials for load-bearing walls" will not be strengthened and that no dominant position will be created in the market for "building materials for non load-bearing walls". A minority disagrees.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees that the operation should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA-Agreement.

8. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all other points raised during its discussion of the case and recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Communication from the French Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations to prospect for, exploit and extract hydrocarbons(1)

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, designated the "Gaz de Gardanne" licence)

(2003/C 248/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By request of 26 July 2002, supplemented and amended on 8 April 2003, Heritage Petroleum plc, with registered offices at 15 Bloomsbury Square, London WC1A 2LS (United Kingdom), applied for an exclusive five-year licence, designated the "Gaz de Gardanne licence", to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in an area of approximately 730 km2 forming part of the departments of Bouches du Rhône and Var.

The area covered by this licence is contained within a perimeter 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:

>TABLE>

Interested companies may, within 90 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 the Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 of 30 December 1994, page 11, and established by Decree 95-427 of 19 April 1995 regarding mining rights (Journal officiel de la République française of 22 April 1995).

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 02 30, fax (33) 144 97 05 70).

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/C-1/37.451, 35.578, 35.579 - Deutsche Telekom AG

(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)(1))

(2003/C 288/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

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

On 18 March 1999 Mannesmann Arcor, a German nationwide fixed network telephone operator, submitted a complaint against Deutsche Telekom AG ("DTAG") for an alleged abuse of DTAG's dominant position. On 19 and 20 July 1999 further complaints on the same issue were submitted by 14 separate complainants, all German local and regional telecommunications operations active in different German towns and cities.

A Statement of Objections ("SO") was sent to DTAG on 3 May 2002. DTAG received access to the file on 17 June 2002.

A non-confidential version of the SO was sent to the complainants on 31 May 2002.

The original deadline for DTAG to reply was two months from the date of receipt of the SO (i.e. 6 July 2002). On 14 June 2002, DTAG submitted a reasoned request for an extension of one month. After considering the arguments I agreed to extend the deadline until 29 July 2002.

DTAG waived their right to request an oral hearing.

On 22 July 2002 a company that had submitted a reasoned request to be considered as an interested third party, was admitted as such. This company was informed of the nature and subject-matter of the procedure in this case by means of a non-confidential version of the SO.

The replies received from complainants were sent to DTAG on 24 September 2002. A further reply received from the third party was sent to DTAG on 17 October 2002. DTAG replied to both sets of comments on 25 October 2002.

On 21 February 2003 a letter was sent to DTAG informing them that the Commission intended to make use of facts and figures relating to the time period following the SO that had already been communicated by DTAG at the Commission's request, together with certain additional information that had been requested from DTAG further to their reply to the SO. DTAG was given three weeks to respond to this letter. DTAG replied on 14 March 2003.

The rights to be heard have been respected in this case. 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, 7 May 2003.

Karen Williams

(1) This final report is linked to Commission Decision 2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 - Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ L 263, 14.10.2003, p. 9).
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at the 110th meeting on 14 June 2002 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2650 - Haniel/Cementbouw/JV (CVK)

(2003/C 261/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and that the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation. A minority abstains.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product market as "building materials for load-bearing walls".

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic market as a national Dutch market.

4. A majority of the Advisory Committee shares the Commission's view that Haniel and Cementbouw acquired control over CVK by the transaction of August 9, 1999 and that this transaction resulted in a change in the market structure. A minority abstains.

5. A majority of the Advisory Committee shares the Commission's view that CVK holds a dominant position in the relevant market and that CVK has been acting independently from its competitors, customers and consumers since the acquisition. A minority abstains.

6. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments as proposed by the Parties would be sufficient to remove the competition concerns identified by the Commission. A minority abstains.

7. A majorty of the Advisory Committee therefore agrees that the operation should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA-Agreement. A minority abstains.

8. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all other points raised during its discussion of the case and in particular the comments on question 5 raised by a minority. It recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 111th bis meeting on 15 July 2002 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.2698 - Promatech/Sulzer Textil

(2004/C 67/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration constitutes a concentration within the meanning of Article 22(3) of the Merger Regulation leading to proceedings pursuant to Articles 6(1)(c) and 22(4) of this regulation and 57 of the EEA Agreement.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there is a product market for rapier weaving machines, leaving open whether there is a distinction between positive and negative rapier.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for rapier weaving machines (or negative rapier weaving machines) is Western Europe, i.e. the EEA Member States and Switzerland.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration will create or strengthen a dominant position in the market for rapier weaving machines (or negative rapier weaving machines).

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration will not create a dominant position in the market for warp stop motions.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed remedies constitute appropriate measures necessary to maintain or restore effective competition whithin the territory of the referring Member States for the purposes of the application of Article 22(5) of the Merger Regulation.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration, as modified by the commitments, will not create or strengthen a dominant position on any of the markets assessed above.

8. The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take account of all the points raised in the discussion.

9. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at its meeting on 25 June 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to case COMP/M.2220 - General Electric/Honeywell

(2004/C 42/07)

(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.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, the relevant product markets are:

(a) jet engines for large commercial aircraft;

(b) jet engines for regional aircraft, divided into large and small regional aircraft;

(c) jet engines for corporate aircraft;

(d) maintenance, repair, overhaul services and the supply of spare parts for jet engines;

(e) avionics, divided product by product;

(f) non-avionics, divided product by product;

(g) engine controls, divided product by product;

(h) small marine gas turbines.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for

(a) the supply of jet engines for large commercial aircraft, regional jet aircraft and corporate jet aircraft is worldwide;

(b) maintenance, repair, overhaul services and the spare parts for jet engines need not be finally defined for the purposes of this case;

(c) avionics products is worldwide;

(d) non-avionics products is worldwide;

(e) engine controls is worldwide;

(f) small marine gas turbines is at least the EEA and most likely worldwide.

5. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation as initially notified would create or strengthen a dominant position on the market for:

(a) large commercial jet aircraft engines;

(b) large regional jet aircraft engines;

(c) corporate jet aircraft engines;

(d) avionics products;

(e) non-avionics products;

(f) small marine gas turbines;

as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the EEA or any substantial part of that area.

A minority abstains.

6. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments submitted by the parties are insufficient to remove competition concerns.

A minority abstains.

7. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the operation should be declared incompatible with the Common Market and the functioning of the EEA-Agreement.

A minority abstains. A minority regrets that the parties did not offer a structural remedy that would resolve the competition concerns.

8. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

9. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account the remarks and comments made by the Advisory Committee.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations delivered at its 105th meeting on 22 January 2002 on a preliminary draft decision on case COMP/M.2283 - Schneider/Legrand

(2004/C 86/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conditions of Article 8(4) of the Merger Regulation are satisfied.

2. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the restoration of effective competition requires that Schneider should not retain a significant stake in Legrand, and with the definition of a "non-significant stake" given in the draft decision. A minority does not agree for reasons of proportionality, and a different minority abstains as regards the methodology used by the Commission to determine the thresholds adopted.

3. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Schneider may not hive off Wiremold, Ortronics and Arnould separately and that Legrand's assets should be sold en bloc. A minority does not agree.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Schneider should be given a free choice as to how it demerges from Legrand.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the time allowed for Schneider to complete the demerger from Legrand, i.e. the conclusion of a sale agreement or the publication of a public offering either by Schneider within nine months of the date of the decision adopted under Article 8(4) or by the trustee within an additional period of three months.

6. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all the points raised in the discussion.

7. The Advisory Committee asks for its opinion to be published.