ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/40

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 for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’)

(2005/C 168/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By request of 17 January 2005, Géopétrol SA, a company with registered offices at 9, rue Nicolas Copernic BP 20, 93151 (Seine Saint-Denis) Le Blanc-Mesnil Cedex, France, applied for an exclusive licence, for a period of four years, to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’, over an area of approximately 200 km2 in the department of Seine et Marne.

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

VERTICES LONGITUDE LATITUDE 1 0.30 degrees E 53.80 degrees N 2 0.60 degrees E 53.80 degrees N 3 0.60 degrees E 53.70 degrees N 4 0.30 degrees E 53.70 degrees N

Interested companies may, within 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, page 11, and established by Decree 95-427 of 19 April 1995 regarding mining rights (Official Journal of the French Republic 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, France, (tel. (33) 44 97 23 02, fax (33) 44 97 05 70).

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
2.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the league Association's commitments introduce competition in the marketing of Bundesliga and 2. Bundesliga rights between the league and the clubs and allow for new in particular club branded products, reduce the scope and duration of future marketing deals and provide a transparent and non-discriminatory procedure, and improve accessibility of content for TV, Radio and the new media operators. A minority voted against. A minority abstains.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/8

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

(2005/C 251/11)

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 Australia 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 Australia 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 Australia 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 187/18

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 346th meeting on 28 October 2002 concerning a preliminary draft decision on Case COMP/37.784 — Fine Art Auction Houses

(2005/C 187/14)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines as regards: (a) the gravity of the infringement, (b) the duration of the infringement.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/11

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

(2005/C 251/17)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, and with reference to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be of possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity mechanism, hereby notifies:

1. Australia,

2. Canada,

3. United States of America,

as countries that unilaterally apply visa regime to the nationals of the Republic of Poland.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Council of the European Union and the European Commission the 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 251/9

Notification by Greece concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 251/13)

Sir,

Following the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005, which amends Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 and establishes a reciprocity mechanism for cases where third countries unilaterally impose a visa requirement on Community citizens, and pursuant to Article 2 of that Regulation, we wish to inform the Council of the European Union of the continuing unfavourable and discriminatory treatment of Greek citizens by the following countries as regards visas:

— United States of America: unilaterally imposes a visa requirement on Greek citizens.

— Australia: requires all Community citizens (and consequently also Greek citizens), before their entry into the country, to hold an Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) ‘quasi visa’, which is the equivalent of a visa. The introduction on 1 July 2005 of a new system for issuing entry visas valid for up to 12 months to Greek citizens on-line, via the Internet, as an alternative, does not fundamentally alter the issue of discriminatory treatment.

— Brunei: unilaterally imposes a visa requirement on Greek citizens, whereas citizens of the majority of the ‘old’ Member States are exempt from a visa requirement for a stay of between 14 and 90 days.

— Malaysia: holders of Greek passports (like Portuguese citizens) are exempt from the visa requirement only in respect of stays of up to one month, whereas all other Community citizens are exempt for stays of three months.

A copy of this letter is being sent to the Director-General of the Justice and Home Affairs DG of the European Commission, Mr Jonathan Faull.

[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 322/17

Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the Tribunal as Judge hearing applications for interim measures

(2005/C 322/10)

On 30 November 2005, in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2004/752 and Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Tribunal decided that, for the 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, Judge S. Van Raepenbusch, President of the Second Chamber, shall replace the President of the Tribunal as Judge hearing applications for interim measures in the event of the President's absence or his being prevented from attending.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/2

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3625 — Blackstone/Acetex

(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)

(2005/C 297/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 January 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Celanese Corporation (‘Celanese’) controlled by Blackstone Crystal Holdings Capital Partners, Cayman Islands (‘Blackstone’) acquires control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation of the whole of the undertaking Acetex Corporation, Canada (‘Acetex’) by way of purchase of shares.

Having examined the information submitted by the parties to the proposed merger and conducted an initial market investigation, the Commission concluded that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. On 10 March 2005, the Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Following a detailed market investigation, the Commission services concluded that the proposed concentration did not significantly impede effective competition on the markets concerned by the case. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the parties.

In the course of the market investigation, the parties were granted access to key documents under section 7.2 of DG Competition's best practices on the conduct of merger control proceedings.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards rights to be heard.

Brussels, 29 June 2005. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission 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 a) in the market for rotogravure printing of magazines in Germany. b) in the market for rotogravure printing of catalogues in Germany plus the neighbouring countries (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark) as well as Italy and Slovakia. c) in the market for rotogravure printing of advertisements in Germany plus the neighbouring countries (France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark) as well as Italy and Slovakia. A minority of Member States disagrees with 8 a).
5.

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 In interventional cardiology (IC) devices: (a) as a result of the strengthening of Guidant's dominant postition in the market for steerable guidewires (SGW). In endovascular devices: (b) in particular as a result of the creation of a dominant position in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain for balloon expandable stents (BX); (c) in particular as a result of the creation of a dominant position, as the proposed concentration will give rise to non-coordinated adverse effects in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain for self expandable carotid stents (SX carotid stents); (d) in particular as a result of the creation or the strengthening of a dominant position, as the proposed concentration will give rise to non-coordinated adverse effects in the national markets of Austria, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands for self expandable non-carotid stents (SX non-carotid stents). In cardiac surgery devices: (e) as the concentration will give rise to a dominant position in the market for Endoscopic vessel harvesting systems (EVH).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 288/26

Annual Report 2005

(2006/C 288/18)

The European Ombudsman has presented his Annual Report for the year 2005 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 20 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:
11.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to full compliance with the undertakings offered by the parties, and considered all undertakings together, the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Merger Regulation and that the proposed concentration is therefore to be declared compatible with Article 2(2) and 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/10

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/C.37.773 — Monochloroacetic Acid (MCAA)

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

(2006/C 303/09)

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

The Commission's investigation of a potential infringement of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Treaty in the MCAA industry was initiated following an application for leniency submitted further to the Commission's 1996 Notice on Non-imposition or reduction of Fines in Cartel Cases (‘Leniency Notice’).

A Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was sent on 7 April 2004 to twelve parties considered on a preliminary basis to have participated in the cartel, namely;

— Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Eka Chemicals AB, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB. (‘Akzo Nobel’)

— Clariant GmbH, Clariant AG (‘Clariant’)

— Elf Aquitaine SA, Atofina SA and

— Hoechst AG (‘Hoechst’)

Access to the file was provided by CD-ROM.

An extension of the deadline to reply to the SO was granted to a number of companies (Akzo Nobel, Clariant, Elf Aquitaine SA and Atofina SA). They all replied, within the time limit provided.

Hoechst was initially served with an incomplete version of the SO. A corrected version was sent subsequently. Accordingly, Hoechst was granted a further extension of the deadline to reply and did so, within the time limit provided, on 23 July 2004.

By letters of 22 June and 28 July 2004, Hoechst requested access to the reply by Clariant to the SO. Hoechst was informed that other parties' responses to the SO are not part of the investigation file to which access is generally granted. Access to other parties' replies is required only to the extent that they contain information that the Commission intends to make use of in the final decision. This has not occurred in the present case.

All parties except for Elf Aquitaine SA and Hoechst participated in an oral hearing that took place on 10 September 2003.

The draft decision submitted to the Commission only contains objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights of the parties to be heard have been respected in this case
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees unanimously with the Commission that all the events described in the draft decision with only one exception constitue agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of article 81(1) EC. As for the events concerning Topps and LDX a minority disagrees with Commission's view that they constitute agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of artcile 81(1) EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/47

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3916 — T-Mobile Austria/Tele.ring

(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 (1))

(2007/C 72/22)

On 21 September 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) by which the undertaking T-Mobile Austria GmbH (‘T-Mobile’, Austria) belonging to the German group Deutsche Telekom AG (‘DTAG’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Tele.ring Unternehmensgruppe (‘TeleRing’, Austria) 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. In particular, concerns resulted from the fact that TeleRing was considered to be the most active competitor in the market driving prices down due to, inter alia, its very strong incentive to build up a sufficiently large customer base in order to generate considerable economies of scale for its fully expanded mobile 2G network.

Accordingly, and in spite of the commitments proposed by T-Mobile on 19 October 2005, the Commission initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 14 November 2005.

T-Mobile did not request access to the ‘key documents ’in the Commission file in accordance with chapter 7(2). of the ‘Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings’.

On 1 December 2005, T-Mobile submitted a further commitment proposal.

On 8 February 2006, a Statement of Objections was sent to T-Mobile, which replied on 27 February 2006. The same day, access to file was provided. On 1 March 2006, TeleRing submitted its comments to the SO.

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

In agreement with T-Mobile, the Commission issued a decision on 21 February 2006 pursuant to Article 10(3) second paragraph of the Merger Regulation in order to extend the procedure by 20 working days.

On 3 March 2006, T-Mobile submitted an improved set of commitments which were subsequently market-tested. The market test of these improved undertakings was mainly positive.

I have not been asked to verify the objectivity of the enquiry.

In the light of the commitments eventually proposed and having analysed the results of the market test, the draft Decision concludes that the proposed concentration, subject to full respect of the commitments, is compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement.

In the light of the above, I consider that the parties' rights to be heard have been respected.

Brussels, 18 April 2006 Serge DURANDE

(1) OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
4.

The Advisory Committee shares the Commission's analysis that the operation should be authorised: a. In relation to ethylene oxide: a.1. Purified ethylene oxide merchant market is an affected market. a.2. Competing undertakings are capable of increasing their production should the combined entity raise prices unilaterally. (One Member State abstains). a.3. The forecast development of capacities will be such as to reinforce the current excess capacity and will enable competitors to respond to any risk of price increases on the part of the combined entity. a.4. As a result the operation will not affect competition on the market for ethylene oxide. b. In relation to ethylene glycol: b.1. The combined entity will not have a dominant position on this market. b.2. As a result the operation will not affect competition on the market for ethylene glycol. c. In relation to vertical integration: c.1. The upstream market for ethylene used for the production of ethylene oxide is not affected by the operation. c.2. The other downstream markets for ethylene oxide derivatives (excluding ethylene glycols) are not affected by the operation.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees in particular with the assessment that the entire system of preparatory and joint meetings, with the ensuing agreements between the group of bitumen suppliers and the group of road builders on gross prices and rebates for road pavement bitumen in the Netherlands forms part of a single overall scheme and therefore constitutes a single infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty of both bitumen suppliers and road builders.
4.

Applications will be judged on the basis of the following criteria: (a) the financial viability of the applicant and its financial capacity to carry out the activities that would be permitted under the licence during the initial term including the work programme submitted for evaluating the full potential of the area within the block or blocks applied for; (b) the technical capability of the applicant to carry out activities that would be permitted under the licence during the initial term including the identification of hydrocarbon prospects within the block or blocks applied for. The technical capability will be assessed in part upon the quality of analysis related to the block or blocks applied for; (c) the way in which the applicant proposes to carry out the activities that would be permitted under the licence including the quality of the work programme submitted for evaluating the full potential of the area applied for; (d) where the applicant holds or has held a licence granted under or treated as having been granted under the Petroleum Act 1998, any lack of efficiency and responsibility displayed by the applicant in operations under that licence.