ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2698 - Promatech/Sulzer Textil

(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 67/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision does not give rise to any particular observations regarding the right to be heard.

The Commission's examination of this case began following requests made by a number of Member States under Article 22(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4064/89 ("Merger Regulation"), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97. Following the initiation of proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) on 14 April 2002, the Commission carried out an in-depth investigation of the market(s) on which it had identified competition concerns. On 19 June 2002 Promatech submitted commitments modifying the original concentration plan in order to remove the Commission's competition concerns and to obtain clearance in the shortest period of time. The Commission has concluded that the commitments submitted by the parties maintain or restore effective competition in the territories of the Member States that requested the Commission to deal with the case. Accordingly, no statement of objections has been sent in this case, and a decision under Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation is proposed.

Brussels, 18 July 2002.

Karen Williams
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 118th meeting on 12 August 2003 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.3083 - General Electric/Instrumentarium

(2004/C 92/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

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

2(a) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that as regards patient monitors the relevant product markets are each of perioperative monitors, critical care monitors and general ward monitors.

2(b) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the precise product market definition as regards C-Arms can be left open, in particular as regards the question whether low-end, vascular and cardiac C-Arms constitute separate product market.

2(c) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that as regards mammography devices the relevant product markets are each of analogue mammography devices and digital mammography devices.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic markets for each relevant product market are national.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not lead to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in the markets for

(a) General Ward monitors,

(b) all possible markets regarding C-Arms,

(c) both analogue and digital mammography devices.

5(a) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration, because of horizontal effects, is likely to lead to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in the markets for perioperative monitors in Spain, the United Kingdom, Sweden, France and Germany.

5(b) The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration, due to the merger's vertical effects on the markets for anaesthesia machines, perioperative and critical care monitors and Clinical Information Systems, is likely to raise serious doubts as to the compatibility of the concentration with the common market in at least Belgium, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed commitments would solve the competition concerns identified in the market for perioperative monitors and dispel the serious doubts as regards the vertical issues concerning the markets for anaesthesia machines, perioperative and critical care monitors and Clinical Information Systems.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration should be declared compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Merger Regulation and with the EEA agreement, subject to compliance with the commitments.

8. The Advisory Committee recommends 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.
2.)

This invitation is in respect of those blocks and parts of blocks that are not subject to an existing petroleum production licence on the date of this Notice in the areas shown on maps deposited at the Department of Trade and Industry, where they can be viewed by prior appointment (see below for contact details) between 0915 and 1645, Monday to Friday, until 8 June 2005. The maps and a list of the blocks and part blocks comprising this offer, and the SEA areas into which they fall, are also available on the DTI's Oil & Gas site at www.og.dti.gov.uk. This is the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) 23rd Round of Licensing.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 3/4

Final report of the hearing officer in Case COMP/38.549 — Architects' Association

(delivered in accordance with Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 3/04)

With regard to the right to be heard, the following observations can be made on the draft decision.

On 3 November 2003, following an own-initiative investigation, the Commission sent a statement of objections to the Belgian Architects' Association. The statement of objections argued that the setting of scales of fixed or recommended minimum fees was contrary to the rules on competition.

The Association was given access to the file on 2 December 2003.

The Association was allowed ten weeks to reply to the statement of objections. It submitted comments within that time.

The Association considered that its rights of defence had not been fully respected in the proceedings because it had not had access to a document that the directorate-general for Competition had classified ‘confidential’.

Upon examination it became clear that this document would have made it possible to identify a person who had supplied information to the Commission.

It had thus been classified ‘confidential’ quite rightly, given the duty of confidentiality that rests on the Commission in such cases.

The anonymity of a person who supplies information must be respected if that person so requests and may otherwise be open to reprisals (Court of Justice in Case 143/85 Adams v Commission, paragraphs 34 ff.).

The Association exercised its right to defend itself orally, at a hearing that took place on 9 February 2004.

The draft Commission Decision does not raise any fresh objections additional to those in the statement of objections previously addressed to the Association.

I consider, therefore, that the parties' right to be heard has been respected.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 162/2

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/32.448 and 32.450 — Compagnie Maritime Belge

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 162/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

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

A Statement of Objections was sent to Compagnie Maritime Belge (CMB) and Dafra-Lines on 17 April 2003.

On 1 May 2003 the Commission was informed that Dafra-Lines had been liquidated on 4 March 2003. As a result, the procedure against this company was discontinued.

On 16 May 2003, a list of all documents in the files 32.450 and 32.448 was sent to CMB and to their legal representative.

On 26 May 2003, CMB requested a two month extension of the deadline to reply to the Statement of Objections, arguing that they had received the Statement of Objections shortly before the Easter weekend and that it was difficult to give an adequate reply within the deadline since the case dated back to the 1980s. I granted an extension of four weeks, that is until 15 July 2003.

Access to the file was not requested by CMB.

On 16 July 2004, CMB submitted a reply to the Statement of Objections and requested a formal oral hearing.

The formal oral hearing took place on 24 September 2003.

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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/1

Notification by the Slovak Republic concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/01)

The Permanent Representation of the Slovak Republic to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission.

Pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, the Slovak Republic has the honour of giving notification that, as at 24 June 2005, the following third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 had a non-reciprocal visa requirement in place in respect of citizens of the Slovak Republic:

Australia,

Canada,

Panama,

United States of America,

Costa Rica (for a stay exceeding 30 days),

Brunei (for a stay exceeding 14 days).

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

This notification cancels and replaces the previous notification dated 11 June 2005.

(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 251/12

Notification by Portugal concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/19)

Sir,

With reference to our letter No 2123 of 19 July 2005, notifying you that Brunei subjects Portuguese nationals to a visa requirement, it should be pointed out the notification was given under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 as regards the reciprocity mechanism.

It should be added that a similar notification, under the same provision, was on the same date sent to the European Commission.

(Complimentary close).

Sir,

This is to notify you, under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 581/2005 of 2 June 2005, that Brunei subjects Portuguese nationals to a visa requirement.

(Complimentary close).

(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 322/16

Constitution and composition of the Chambers, election of their Presidents and assignment of the Judges to Chambers

(2005/C 322/08)

On 30 November 2005, in accordance with Article 3(3) and (4) and Article 4 of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (1) and Article 4(2) and (3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Civil Service Tribunal decided to sit in three Chambers and as a full Court. In addition, for the period from 30 November 2005 to 30 September 2008, it elected as Presidents of Chambers Judges H. KREPPEL and S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH and assigned the Judges to the Chambers as follows:

First Chamber

H. KREPPEL, President of Chamber,

H. TAGARAS and S. GERVASONI, Judges,

Second Chamber

S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH, President of Chamber,

I. BORUTA and H. KANNINEN, Judges,

Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges

P. MAHONEY, President of the Tribunal (2);

I. BORUTA, H. KANNINEN, H. TAGARAS and S. GERVASONI, Judges.

In the Third Chamber, the President will sit, alternately, either with Judges I. BORUTA and H. TAGARAS or with Judges H. KANNINEN and S. GERVASONI, subject always to connections between cases.

(1) OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7.

(2) OJ 2005 C 271, p. 27.
5)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there is a risk that the creation of the joint venture could have as its effect the coordination of the parties' competitive behaviour in uranium enrichment on either the EU or wider market, in the sense of Article 2(4) of the Merger Regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/19

CORRIGENDUM

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

Reference period: October 2006

Application period: January, February and March 2007

( Official Journal of the European Union C 268 of 4 November 2006 )

(2007/C 19/08)

The conversion table should read as follows:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/37

Special Reports to the European Parliament made in accordance with Article 3(7) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman (1)

(2006/C 67/19)

The European Ombudsman addressed three special reports to the European Parliament in 2005:

— Special Report of 12 May 2005 following the draft recommendation to the European Anti-Fraud office in complaint 2485/2004/GG;

— Special Report of 27 May 2005 following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 1391/2002/JMA;

— Special Report of 4 October 2005 following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG.

The texts of the special reports are available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 20 official languages at: http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int.

Paper copies can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office — 1 Avenue du Président Robert Schuman — B.P. 403 — F-67001 Strasbourg Cedex. Telephone (33) (0) 388 17 23 13 — Fax (33) (0) 388 17 90 62 — Email: euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int.

(1) Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman's Duties (OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15).
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.
10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration is likely to result in a significant impediment to effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it and the EEA for the following markets: Belgium: (a) Supply of gas to intermediary resellers; (b) Supply of gas to electricity producers; (c) Supply of gas to large industrial customers; (d) Supply of gas to small industrial customers; (e) Supply of gas to household customers; (f) Generation and Wholesale of electricity; (g) Balancing power and ancillary services; (h) Supply of electricity to large industrial customers; (i) Supply of electricity to small industrial customers; (j) Supply of electricity to residential customers. France: (a) Markets for the supply of H gas to intermediary resellers in the North and East zones and the market for the supply of L gas to intermediary resellers in the North zone; (b) Markets for the supply of (i) H gas to electricity producers in the North and East zones and (ii) L gas to electricity producers in the North zone; (c) Markets for the supply of H gas to large industrial customers which have exercised their eligibility in the North, East, West and South zones; (d) Markets for the supply of H gas to small industrial customers which have exercised their eligibility in the North, East, West, South and South-West zones; (e) Markets for the supply of L gas to (i) large industrial customers which have exercised their eligibility and (ii) small industrial customers which have exercised their eligibility in the North zone; (f) Markets for the supply of (i) H gas to household customers from 1 July 2007 in the North, East, West, South and South-West zones and (ii) L gas to household customers from 1 July 2007 in the North zone; (g) Market for delegated management of district heating networks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 54/4

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4094 — Ineos/BP Dormagen

(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.)

(2007/C 54/05)

On 24 January 2006, Ineos notified the transaction to Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), by which the undertaking INEOS Group Limited (‘Ineos’) would acquire control of the BP Ethylene Oxide/Ethylene Glycol Business (‘BP Dormagen Business’) controlled by British Petroleum Group (‘BP’).

Upon examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the notified operation raised serious concerns as to its compatibility with the common market, and decided to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 on 28 February 2006. For the purpose of obtaining further information from the notifying party, the Commission adopted an Article 11(3) decision addressed to the notifying party dated 21 March 2006. On 4 April 2006, upon request, the notifying party was given access to key documents in accordance with DG Competition's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings. On 19 May 2006 the Commission adopted, with the agreement of Ineos, an Article 10(3) decision extending the duration of the procedure by 10 working days.

The Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Ineos on 30 May 2006, to which Ineos replied on 14 June 2006. Ineos did not request a formal oral hearing.

Access to file

Ineos was granted access to file upon issuance of the Statement of Objections. In a letter to the Hearing Officer of 5 June 2006, Ineos complained that the Commission's Statement of Objections relied heavily upon information from third parties which Ineos had not had the opportunity to review or upon which they had not had the opportunity to submit their observations. I requested that the Commission services respond to Ineos' concerns in the first place. Ineos was provided with anonymised summaries of third party information on 9 June 2006. Some information was deemed to be sensitive business information, which was not disclosed to Ineos. Ineos has not pursued this issue further with the Hearing Officer.

Letter of facts

On 29 June 2006, the Commission sent a letter of facts setting out additional data relating to the objections. Ineos was requested to submit its comments, which it did on 4 July 2006.

After examination of the parties' reply to the Statement of Objections and in the light of new evidence obtained from market participants after issuing the Statement of Objections, 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 particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 99/17

Notification by the Hungarian Government under Directive 94//22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1) and repealing Notification 2005/C 309/03 (OJ C 309, 7.12.2005, p. 8)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 99/17)

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 authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, the Republic of Hungary hereby notifies the European Commission, that the competent authorities are the following:

— According to Act XLVIII. of 1993 on mining, the main competent authority is the Ministry of Economy and Transport. Address: H-1055 Budapest, Honvéd utca 13-15.

— According to Act XLVIII. of 1993 on mining, the Mining and Geological Bureau of Hungary and its regional organizations, the district mining inspectorates, are responsible for the public administration tasks concerning mining. The supervision of the Mining and Geological Bureau of Hungary is carried out by the Minister of Economy and Transport. Address: H-1051 Budapest, Arany János utca 25.

— According to Government Decree 267/2006. (XII. 20.) on the Mining and Geological Bureau of Hungary, the seats and competent areas of the district mining inspectorates are as follows: 1. Budapest District Mining Inspectorate: the area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of the City of Budapest and the county of Pest. Postal address: H-1145 Budapest, Columbus u. 17-23. 2. Miskolc District Mining Inspectorate: the area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Hajdú-Bihar, Heves, Nógrád and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg counties. Postal address: H-3501 Miskolc, Soltész Nagy Kálmán út 5. 3. Pécs District Mining Inspectorate: the area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of Baranya, Tolna, Somogy and Zala counties. Postal address: H-7601 Pécs, József Attila u. 5. 4. Szolnok District Mining Inspectorate: the area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of Bács-Kiskun, Békés, Csongrád, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok counties. Postal address: H-5001 Szolnok, Templom u. 5. 5 Veszprém District Mining Inspectorate: the area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of Fejér, Győr-Moson-Sopron, Komárom-Esztergom, Vas and Veszprém counties. Postal address: H-8201 Veszprém, Budapest út 2.

— According to Government Decree 267/2006. (XII. 20.) on the Mining and Geological Bureau of Hungary, in matters concerning mining, with the defined exemptions, the authorities in the first instance are the regionally competent district mining inspectorates; and the authority in the second instance is the Mining and Geological Bureau of Hungary.

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

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/12

Annual Report 2006

(2007/C 262/11)

The European Ombudsman has presented his Annual Report for the year 2006 to the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 195(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 3(8) of the Decision of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the performance of the Ombudsman's Duties.

The Annual Report as well as a shorter version containing only the Executive Summary and the Statistics are available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 23 official languages at:

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu

Paper copies of these publications can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office: