ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 327/2

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

(2005/C 327/02)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission and has the honour of notifying that, pursuant to Article 1(4)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005, the Republic of Panama, by his note of 21 September 2005, has announced that according to the Government decision of the Republic of Panama, since 6 June 2005 Estonian citizens will not require a visa to enter the country.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to assure the Council of the European Union and the European Commission of its highest consideration.

(1) This notification is published in conformity with Article 1(4)(f) 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 309/8

Notification by the Hungarian Government under 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

(2005/C 309/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

In accordance with Article 10 of 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, Hungary hereby notifies the European Commission that the competent Hungarian authorities are as follows:

— Under Section 43(5) of the 1993 Mining Act [A bányászatról szóló 1993. évi XLVIII. Törvény], the main competent authority is the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Transport [Gazdasági és Közlekedési Minisztérium]. Address: H-1055 Budapest, Honvéd utca 13-15.

— Under Section 43(1), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the 1993 Mining Act, the Mining Bureau of Hungary and its local agencies, the district mining inspectorates [bányakapitányságok], perform the State's specialised administrative tasks relating to mining. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Transport is responsible for supervising the Mining Bureau of Hungary [Magyar Bányászati Hivatal]. Address: H-1051 Budapest, Arany János utca 25.

— Under Sections 1 and 2 of Ministry of Industry and Trade Order 19/94 (VIII.5) on the headquarters and jurisdictions of the district mining inspectorates [A bányakapitányságok székhelyének és illetékességének megállapításáról szóló 19/1994. (VIII. 5.) IKM [Ipari és Kereskedelmi Minisztérium] rendelet] the local agencies of the Mining Bureau of Hungary (district inspectorates) are as follows: 1. Miskolc District Mines Inspectorate, Miskolci Bányakapitányság: area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of the counties of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén, Hajdú-Bihar, Heves, Nógrád and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg. Address: H-3501 Miskolc, Soltész Nagy Kálmán út 5. 2. Pécs District Mines Inspectorate, Pécsi Bányakapitányság: area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of the counties of Baranya, Tolna, Somogy and Zala. Address: H-7601 Pécs, József Attila u. 5. 3. Szolnok District Mines Inspectorate, Szolnoki Bányakapitányság: area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of the City of Budapest, and the counties of Bács-Kiskun, Békés, Csongrád, and Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok and Pest. Address: H-5001 Szolnok, Templom u. 5. 4. Veszprémi District Mines Inspectorate, Veszprémi Bányakapitányság: area of jurisdiction comprises the administrative area of the counties of Fejér, Győr-Moson-Sopron, Komárom-Esztergom, Vas and Veszprém. Address: H-8201 Veszprém, Budapest út 2.

Under Section 43(4) of the 1993 Mining Act, official matters falling within the competence of the mining supervisory authorities are dealt with in the first instance by the district mines inspectorate responsible for the area, and in the second instance by the Mining Bureau of Hungary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/3

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP /M.3178 — Bertelsmann/Springer

(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 52/03)

On 4 November 2004 the Commission received notification of a proposed merger by which the undertakings Bertelsmann AG (Germany), its solely controlled subsidiary Gruner+Jahr AG & Co. KG (Germany), and Axel Springer AG (Germany), acquire joint control of the undertaking NewCo by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

Having examined the information submitted by the parties to the proposed merger and conducted a market survey, the Commission concluded that the merger raised serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. On 23 December 2004, therefore, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for by Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Following a detailed market investigation, the Commission concluded that the proposed concentration did 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, and that it did not restrict competition within the meaning of Article 2 (4) of the Merger Regulation and Article 81 of the Treaty. 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 Best Practices on the conduct of merger control proceedings.

The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/36

List of members of the Management Board of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

(2006/C 19/09)

In accordance with Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1652/2003 of 18 June 2003 (2), the Commission is responsible for publishing the names of the members and deputy members of the Management Board.

Belgium

Full Member : Ms Eliane Deproost Deputy Member : Mr Jozef De Witte

Czech Republic

Full Member : Mr Petr Uhl Deputy Member : Mr Jiří Kopal

Denmark

Full Member : Mr Niels Johan Petersen Deputy Member : Mr Mads Bryde Andersen

Germany

Full Member : Ms Claudia Roth Deputy Member : Mr Claus Henning Schapper

Estonia

Full Member : Mr Tanel Mätlik Deputy Member : Mr Michael Gallagher

Greece

Full Member : Mr Spyridon Flogaitis Deputy Member : Mr Nikolaos Frangakis

Spain

Full Member : Ms Rosa Aparicio Gómez Deputy Member : Mr Lorenzo Cachón Rodríguez

France

Full Member : Mr Guy Braibant Deputy Member : Mr Jean-Marie Coulon

Ireland

Full Member : Ms Anastasia Crickley Deputy Member : Mr Rory O'Donnel

Italy

Full Member : Mr Beniamino Caravita di Toritto Deputy Member : Mr Massimiliano Monnanni

Cyprus

Full Member : Ms Eliana Nicolaou Deputy Member : Mr Aristos Tsiartas

Latvia

Full Member : Ms Ilze Brands Kehris Deputy Member : Ms Gita Feldhūne

Lithuania

Full Member : Mr Arvydas Virgilijus Matulionis Deputy Member : Mr Šarūnas Liekis

Luxembourg

Full Member : Mr Victor Weitzel Deputy Member : Ms Anne Henniqui

Hungary

Full Member : Mr András Kádár Deputy Member : Ms Katalin Pécsi

Malta

Full Member : Mr Duncan Borg Myatt Deputy Member : Ms Claire Zarb

Netherlands

Full Member : Ms Jenny E. Goldschmidt Deputy Member : Mr Gilbert R. Wawoe

Austria

Full Member : Mr Helmut Strobl Deputy Member : Mr Peter J. Scheer

Poland

Full Member : Mr Piotr Mochnaczewski Deputy Member : Ms Danuta Głowacka-Mazur

Portugal

Full Member : Not communicated Deputy Member : Not communicated

Slovenia

Full Member : Ms Vera Klopčič Deputy Member : Ms Tatjana Strojan

Slovakia

Full Member : Mr Miroslav Kusý Deputy Member : Mr Tibor Pichler

Finland

Full Member : Mr Mikko Puumalainen Deputy Member : Ms Kristina Stenman

Sweden

Full Member : Mr Hans Ytterberg Deputy Member : Ms Anna-Karin Johansson

United Kingdom

Full Member : Ms Naina Patel Deputy Member : Not communicated

Council of Europe

Full Member : Mr Gün Kut Deputy Member : Ms Maja Sersic

European Parliament

Full Member : Ms Chafia Mentalecheta Deputy Member : Mr Richard Séréro

European Commission

Representative : Mr Francisco Fonseca Morillo Alternate : Appointment in progress

Observers

Bulgaria

Observer : Mr Emil Konstantinov

Romania

Observer : Ms Monica Vlad

Turkey

Observer : Ms Ioanna Kuçuradi

(1) OJ L 151, 10.6.1997, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 33.
1.

A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine determined according to the gravity and duration of the infringement in the present case. A minority abstains.
5.

The majority of members of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that AstraZeneca has abused its dominant position by its pattern of misrepresentations which were made over a long period of time to patent offices in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom and to national courts in Germany and Norway, taking into account the fact that the pattern of misrepresentations was part of AstraZeneca's strategy for omeprazole. A minority abstains.
1.

The Advisory Committee, in view of the reasoning of the fines as submitted to it by the Commission at the meeting, agrees with the method of calculation of the fines used by the Commission in its draft decision as to the gravity of the infringement.
The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purposes of assessing the present operation, the relevant product markets are the following:

a) The market for provision of mobile telecommunication services to end consumers;

b) The market for wholesale of termination services;

c) The market for wholesale international roaming services.

A minority disagrees with respect to a) and a minority abstains for c).
2.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that for the purposes of assessing the present transaction: a) calcium carbonates can be distinguished from other industrial minerals used for applications in the paper industry. b) calcium carbonates for coating and filling applications are not substitutes from a customer's perspective. Calcium carbonates for filling applications c) based on supply-side considerations, filling PCC and coating PCC do not belong in the same product market. d) i) the market investigation and ii) the econometric study support a conclusion that there are degrees of competitive constraint between filling PCC and filling GCC and to a lesser extent, vice versa. A minority of the Advisory Committee disagrees and a minority abstains. e) with regard to the supply of PCC filler, which may be carried out by on-site plant or by merchant market supply, it is not necessary to come to a conclusion as to whether or not on-site supply of PCC filler forms a distinct market since the proposed transaction will not give rise to competition concerns under any reasonable product market definition. A minority of the Advisory Committee disagrees. Calcium carbonates for coating applications f) it is not necessary to come to a conclusion as to whether there are distinct markets for the different GCC coating grades. g) all coating calcium carbonates (i.e. coating PCC and coating GCC, including steep GCC and blends of GCC and PCC) are interchangeable or substitutable to some extent for customers. h) it is not necessary to conclude whether merchant and on-site supplies of PCC for coating constitute two separate markets.
2.

The reference period shall be: — the month of January for rates of conversion applicable from 1 April following, — the month of April for rates of conversion applicable from 1 July following, — the month of July for rates of conversion applicable from 1 October following, — the month of October for rates of conversion applicable from 1 January following. The rates for the conversion of currencies shall be published in the second Official Journal of the European Union (‘C ’series) of the months of February, May, August and November.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment that the transaction does not lead to any competition concerns due to unilateral effects, strengthening the dominance of Sea-Invest or enabling a price increase by EMO-EKOM, or coordinated effects in terminal services for hinterland traffic for coal and iron ore.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/12

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/E-2/39.143 — Opel

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2007/C 304/11)

The draft Decision presented to the Commission under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) relates to the supply of technical information for the repair of General Motors Europe's (GME) Opel and Vauxhall brand vehicles.

The Commission opened an investigation into GME's provision of its technical information to independent repairers on 22 December 2004, following the publication of a study by the German research institute IKA. On 1 December 2006, the Commission opened proceedings under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and adopted a preliminary assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. This assessment set out the Commission's competition concerns, which were that GME seemed to have excluded all but its authorised repairers from full access to its technical information. The Commission's preliminary assessment was sent to GME on 1 December 2006.

In response to this, GME submitted commitments on 9 February 2007.

On 22 March 2007, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, inviting interested companies to transmit observations on this notification within one month of its publication. The comments received in response to this invitation mainly confirmed the effectiveness of the commitments proposed by GME.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the commitments proposed by GME, and without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, there are no longer grounds for action.

In a Decision under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, a breach of the competition rules is not established, but the Parties accept to remedy the concerns expressed by the Commission in a preliminary assessment. There is in this process a willingness on both sides to simplify the administrative and legal requirements which are inherent in a full investigation of a suspected infringement. This is the reason why in several Decisions taken already by the College (2), it has been accepted that due process is satisfied when the Parties inform the Commission that they have received sufficient access to the information they considered necessary to propose commitments in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.

This case has also been dealt with in the same manner, GME having submitted a Declaration to the Commission to this effect on 24 May 2007.

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

Brussels, 11 July 2007. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(2) Cf. decision of 22 June 2005 in Case COMP/39.116 — Coca-Cola and decision of 19 January 2005 in Case COMP/37.214 — DFB.
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments concerning:

(a) channel access;

(b) access to channel packages and pay per view services; and

(c) broadcasting rights for Video on Demand,

are sufficient to remove the significant impediments to effective competition identified in Question 5.
3.

The representative of the EFTA States agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decision have participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty affecting, respectively, the markets of thread for industrial customers in the Benelux and the Nordic countries, the markets of thread for industrial customers in the UK and the markets of automotive thread in the EEA.
4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the commitments offered by Distrigas do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to ensure that alternative gas suppliers are not faced with barriers to entry due to a foreclosure of the relevant markets.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the proposed concentration by which the undertaking Syniverse Technologies, Inc. acquires control of the wireless business of BSG constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and that the Commission has become competent to review this concentration following the referral according to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the markets to be considered are: — the market for provision of online advertising space that could be possibly further subdivided into markets for search advertising and for non-search advertising, — the market for intermediation in online advertising that could be possibly further subdivided into markets for search advertising intermediation and for non-search advertising intermediation, — the market for provision of online display ad serving technology that could be possibly further subdivided between provision of such services to advertisers and to publishers.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the fines based on the 2002 Leniency Notice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 214/12

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2008/C 214/05)

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block F6 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

With reference to the Directive mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block F6 of the Dutch continental shelf.

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

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to: De Minister van Economische Zaken, ter attentie van J.C. De Groot, directeur Energiemarkt, ALP A/562, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, Postbus 20101, 2500 EC Den Haag, Nederland.

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

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31) 70 379 77 62 (contact person: E.J. Hoppel).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/27

Annual Report 2007

(2008/C 326/11)

The European Ombudsman has presented his Annual Report for the year 2007 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:
3.

A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by E.ON AG, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/5

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.628 — Chloroprene Rubber

(pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

2009/C 86/05

The draft Decision gives rise to the following observations:

INTRODUCTION

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

The investigation in this case was triggered by an application for immunity on 13 December 2002 under the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the Leniency Notice) (1) concerning the existence of a cartel in the NBR market in Europe.

Subsequently, the undertakings Bayer AG and Zeon Corporation applied for leniency on 30 January and 27 August 2003, respectively. On 29 March 2007, Bayer and Zeon were informed of the Commissions intention to grant them a reduction of fine within a band of 30-50 % and 20-30 %, respectively, of the fine which would otherwise be imposed on them

An inspection was carried out at the premises of Zeon Chemical Europe on 27 and 28 March 2003.

WRITTEN PROCEDURE

Statement of Objections and replies

On 3 May 2007 the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections, which was addressed to 4 legal entities (Bayer AG, Zeon Corporation, Zeon Europe GmbH and Zeon Chemicals Europe Ltd). In the Statement of Objections, the Commission took the preliminary view that the undertakings concerned had participated in a single complex and continuous infringement of Article 81(1) EC between 9 October 2000 and 30 September 2003 and announced its intention to adopt an infringement decision and to impose fines.

The Parties were granted a deadline of four weeks to reply to the Statement of Objections following receipt of a DVD containing the main part of the Commission's file. All Parties replied in due time.

Access to file

Access to file was granted by way of a DVD sent to the parties and by access to certain documents at the Commission’s premises.

ORAL PROCEDURE

Oral Hearing

The parties did not request the opportunity to develop their arguments at an oral hearing.

Prior to the issuance of the Statement of Objections Zeon Corporation addressed a request under Article 9 of the Hearing Officers Mandate (2) that certain individual names of its employees should not be divulged. By letter dated 17 November 2006 I informed Zeon that in view of the proper exercise of right to be heard its request could only be partially accepted. Zeon did not pursue this issue further.

THE DRAFT DECISION

In my opinion the draft Decision relates only to objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity to make known their views.

I consider that the parties right be right to be heard has been respected in this case for all participants to the proceedings.

Brussels, 11 January 2008. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) OJ C 45/3, 19.2.2002.

(2) Commission decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings, OJ L 162/21, 19.6.2001.