ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 57/12

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case COMP/39.316 — GDF gas foreclosure

The draft Decision presented to the Commission under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) relates to the alleged foreclosure of downstream supply markets for natural gas in France by Gaz de France Suez S.A. and its subsidiaries GRTgaz S.A. and Elengy S.A. (hereafter collectively referred to as ‘GDF’). In particular, the foreclosure would be the result of long-term reservation of most of France's import capacity; the procedures for allocating import capacity in the new Fos Cavaou liquefied natural gas terminal; and the strategic limitation of investments in additional import capacity in the Montoir de Bretagne liquefied natural gas terminal.

The Commission opened proceedings on 16 May 2008 and adopted a preliminary assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) on 22 June 2009. On 24 June 2009, GDF submitted commitments under Article 9(1) in order to address the Commission's competition concerns. The commitments essentially consist in a significant release of long-term import capacity and in the obligation to bring GDF's reservations below 50 % of total long-term import capacity at the latest in 2014 and to keep them at that level for ten years.

On 9 July 2009, the Commission published a notice pursuant to Article 27(4), summarizing the concerns and the commitments and inviting interested third parties to transmit observations on this notification within two months of its publication. The Commission received 23 responses from interested third parties. On 21 September 2009, the Commission informed GDF orally of the result of the market test. GDF did not request for any written access to the responses to the market test. On 21 October 2009, GDF submitted a revised proposal of commitments.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the commitments proposed by GDF, and without prejudice to Article 9(2), the proceedings should be brought to an end.

On 26 October 2009, GDF submitted a declaration to the Commission that it has received sufficient access to the information it considered necessary to propose commitments in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.

No additional queries or submissions have been made to the Hearing Officer in connection with the present case by GDF or any third parties.

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

Brussels, 17 November 2009. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) 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).

(2) In the following, all Articles and chapters referred to are those of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 237/22

DECISION No 300

of 12 May 2010

terminating the procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-10 ‘Botevo’, located in the provinces of Vratsa and Montana

2010/C 237/06

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

Pursuant to Article 50(2), in conjunction with Articles 23(4) and 46(2)(2), of the Subsurface Resources Act and having regard to an infringement noted in the conduct of the procedure, resulting in a tenderer who does not meet the mandatory requirements laid down in the Subsurface Resources Act and the tender dossier being deemed eligible to take part in the procedure,

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS HAS DECIDED THAT:

1. The procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being subsurface resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the Subsurface Resources Act, in Block 1-10 ‘Botevo’, located in the provinces of Vratsa and Montana, shall be terminated.

2. The Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism shall take the necessary steps to return the deposits to the tenderers after this Decision has entered into force.

3. This Decision shall be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court within 14 days following its communication to the tenderers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 348/6

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions given at its meeting of 13 February 2009 concerning a preliminary draft Commission decision on the deletion of Article 7 of Decision 2007/53/EC relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA agreement against Microsoft Corporation and repealing Decision C(2005) 2988 final

Rapporteur: Czech Republic

2010/C 348/06

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Article 7 of the Decision 2007/53/EC shall be deleted and the Decision C(2005) 2988 final shall be repealed.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that it is possible that the conditions of Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 are fulfilled.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on those addressees of the draft decision, for which an imposition of a fine is proposed.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Standard & Poor's, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against the latter, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the duration and the fine should be reduced for the addressee.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/4

Article 107(1), (2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

Reference period: October 2012

Application period: January, February and March 2013

10-2012 EUR BGN CZK DKK LVL LTL HUF PLN 1 EUR = 1 1,95580 24,9386 7,45820 0,696191 3,45280 282,086 4,10707 1 BGN = 0,511300 1 12,7511 3,81338 0,355962 1,76542 144,231 2,09994 1 CZK = 0,0400985 0,0784246 1 0,299063 0,0279162 0,138452 11,3112 0,164687 1 DKK = 0,134081 0,262235 3,34378 1 0,0933457 0,462953 37,8223 0,550678 1 LVL = 1,43639 2,80929 35,8215 10,7129 1 4,95956 405,185 5,89934 1 LTL = 0,289620 0,566439 7,22272 2,16005 0,201631 1 81,6978 1,18949 1 HUF = 0,00354502 0,00693334 0,0884078 0,0264395 0,00246801 0,0122402 1 0,0145596 1 PLN = 0,243483 0,476203 6,07212 1,81594 0,169510 0,840697 68,6831 1 1 RON = 0,219184 0,428681 5,46615 1,63472 0,152594 0,756800 61,8289 0,900205 1 SEK = 0,116084 0,227037 2,89497 0,865776 0,0808165 0,400814 32,7456 0,476764 1 GBP = 1,23969 2,42459 30,9162 9,24587 0,863063 4,28041 349,700 5,09150 1 NOK = 0,134997 0,264027 3,36664 1,006840 0,0939838 0,466118 38,0808 0,554443 1 ISK = 0,00621032 0,0121462 0,154877 0,0463179 0,00432357 0,021443 1,75185 0,0255062 1 CHF = 0,826613 1,61669 20,6146 6,16505 0,575481 2,85413 233,176 3,39496





10-2012 RON SEK GBP NOK ISK CHF 1 EUR = 4,56237 8,61447 0,806652 7,40757 161,022 1,20976 1 BGN = 2,33274 4,40458 0,412441 3,78749 82,3306 0,618548 1 CZK = 0,182944 0,345427 0,0323455 0,297032 6,45674 0,0485094 1 DKK = 0,611725 1,15503 0,108156 0,993210 21,5899 0,162205 1 LVL = 6,55333 12,3737 1,15866 10,6401 231,290 1,73768 1 LTL = 1,32135 2,49492 0,233623 2,14538 46,6352 0,350370 1 HUF = 0,0161737 0,0305384 0,00285960 0,0262599 0,570826 0,00428861 1 PLN = 1,11086 2,09747 0,196406 1,80361 39,2061 0,294555 1 RON = 1 1,88816 0,176806 1,62362 35,2935 0,265160 1 SEK = 0,529617 1 0,0936392 0,859898 18,6921 0,140433 1 GBP = 5,65593 10,6793 1 9,18310 199,618 1,49973 1 NOK = 0,615907 1,16293 0,108896 1 21,7375 0,163314 1 ISK = 0,0283338 0,0534987 0,00500957 0,0460034 1 0,00751298 1 CHF = 3,77131 7,12083 0,666789 6,12319 133,103 1

Note: all cross rates involving ISK are calculated using ISK/EUR rate data from the Central Bank of Iceland

reference: Oct-12 1 EUR in national currency 1 unit of N.C. in EUR BGN 1,95580 0,511300 CZK 24,9386 0,0400985 DKK 7,45820 0,134081 LVL 0,696191 1,43639 LTL 3,45280 0,289620 HUF 282,086 0,00354502 PLN 4,10707 0,243483 RON 4,56237 0,219184 SEK 8,61447 0,116084 GBP 0,806652 1,23969 NOK 7,40757 0,134997 ISK 161,022 0,00621032 CHF 1,20976 0,826613

Note: ISK/EUR rates based on data from the Central Bank of Iceland

1. Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 determines that the rate for the conversion into a currency of amounts denominated in another currency shall be the rate calculated by the Commission and based on the monthly average, during the reference period specified in paragraph 2, of reference rates of exchange of currencies published by the European Central Bank.
72.

The reuse of PSI that contains personal data may bring significant benefits, but also entails considerable risks to the protection of personal data. In light of these risks, the EDPS recommends that the proposal should more clearly define in what situations and subject to what safeguards information containing personal data may be required to be made available for reuse. In particular, the proposal should: — establish more clearly the scope of applicability of the PSI Directive to personal data (Section 3.1), — require that an assessment be carried out by the public sector body concerned before any PSI containing personal data may be made available for reuse (Section 3.1), — where appropriate, require that data be fully or partially anonymised and license conditions specifically prohibit re-identification of individuals and the reuse of personal data for purposes that may individually affect the data subjects (Sections 3.2 and 3.3), — require that the terms of the licence to reuse PSI include a data protection clause, whenever personal data are processed (Section 3.3), — where necessary considering the risks to the protection of personal data, require applicants to demonstrate (via a data protection impact assessment or otherwise) that any risks to the protection of personal data are adequately addressed and that the applicant will process data in compliance with applicable data protection law (Section 3.3, — clarify that reuse can be made contingent upon the purpose for which reuse is made, in derogation from the general rule allowing reuse for any commercial and non-commercial purposes (Section 3.3).
7.

The Advisory Committee agrees that in light of the commitments and without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Rio Tinto Alcan as regards the competition concerns identified in the draft decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/25

Corrigendum to the conversion rates of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Reference period: April 2013 — Application period: July, August, September 2013

( Official Journal of the European Union C 130 of 7 May 2013 )

2013/C 300/07

On pages 6 and 7, the applicable exchange rates should read as follows:
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission's assessment in the draft decision that Microsoft Corporation (‘Microsoft’) has failed to comply with Commission Decision of 16 December 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.530 — Microsoft (Tying), notified under document C(2009) 10033).
92.

The EDPS recommends: — clarifying that the transfer of EURODAC data to third countries is prohibited also in case of use of EURODAC data for law enforcement purposes (see points 43-44), — adding the law enforcement purposes to the information communicated to the data subject (see point 45), — ensuring unequivocally that access by designated authorities to EURODAC data is limited to law enforcement purposes (see point 49), — submitting the access to EURODAC data for law enforcement purposes to a prior judicial authorisation or as a minimum providing that the verifying authority shall perform its duties and tasks independently and shall not receive instructions as regards the exercise of the verification (see points 50-51), — adding the criterion of the ‘need to prevent an imminent danger associated with serious criminal or terrorist offences’ as exceptional case justifying the consultation of EURODAC data without prior verification by the verifying authority and introducing a concrete time limit for the ex-post verification (see points 53-54), — as regards the conditions of access, adding the conditions of (i) a prior consultation of the Visa Information System, (ii) a ‘substantiated suspicion that the perpetrator of a terrorist or other serious criminal offences has applied for asylum’ and (iii) the ‘substantial’ contribution for law enforcement purposes and clarifying what is understood by ‘reasonable grounds’ (see points 56-57), — describing in a recital the kind of situations justifying a direct access by Europol to the EURODAC Central Unit and providing that the strict conditions of access applying to national designated authorities also apply to Europol (see points 58-59), — ensuring that comparison of fingerprints for law enforcement purposes shall in any case be subject to at least the same safeguards foreseen for Dublin Regulation purposes (see point 62), — specifying more clearly the rules on retention or deletion of data (see point 64), — clarifying which additional information to the ‘hit’ will be communicated to EUROPOL if applicable (see points 65-66), — specifying the precise purpose(s) of the request by the Agency's Management Board of the comparisons with EURODAC data by Member State's law enforcement authorities as well as the anonymisation by law enforcement authorities of the data prior to their transmission to the Management Board and restoring the rules on professional secrecies (see points 67-68), — providing an access for the EDPS and Europol's supervisory authority to the records kept by the Agency and Europol respectively as well as the obligation to store records also for conducting regular self-auditing of EURODAC (see points 79 and 85), — clarifying the supervision of Europol's data processing activities (see point 81).
3.

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

Aer Lingus, the target of the public bid and thus the other involved party within the meaning of Article 11(b) of the Implementing Regulation (3), received on 21 November 2012 a non-confidential version of the SO. It immediately expressed concerns about the redaction of the entirety of the section dealing with Ryanair's commitments and the Commission's assessment thereof. Aer Lingus requested to be provided with a copy of the section after DG Competition had rejected it. After having reviewed the reasoned claim, I asked DG Competition to provide Aer Lingus with a non-confidential version of section of the SO on Ryanair's commitments as stipulated by Article 13(2) of the Implementing Regulation. DG Competition then requested Ryanair to provide a less redacted version of the section dealing with commitments, which was subsequently transmitted to Aer Lingus.
26.

The EDPS welcomes that some attention has been given to privacy and data protection in the Communication. However, the EDPS underlines that data protection requirements should receive appropriate consideration from industry, Member States and the Commission when implementing initiatives foreseen in the Digital Agenda. In particular he: — regrets that the Communication did not put any prominent emphasis in its introduction on the importance of the respect of privacy and data protection in the deployment of the actions foreseen therein. He therefore draws the attention of data controllers on the necessity to respect privacy and data protection rules in the design and deployment of new ICT for the digital environment; — regrets that the Communication did not refer to the current data protection legal framework set forth under Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, and to the proposal for a general Data Protection Regulation, which contain the relevant rules and principles to be taken into account for the deployment of ICT in the digital environment; — regrets that the principle of ‘privacy by design’, which would become a legal obligation under Article 23 of the proposed Data Protection Regulation, has not been emphasised in the Communication. He therefore reminds controllers and ICT designers of the necessity to embed privacy by design in the development of new ICT for the digital environment; — recommends that R&D instruments are used to increase Europe's capacity to apply the principle of privacy by design in all relevant disciplines and that work programmes and calls for proposals take this objective into account; — underlines that the interoperability of national databases should only be practiced in full respect of data protection principles, in particular purpose limitation. He furthermore reminds the Commission that there should be an appropriate legal basis for the use of interoperability as a means to facilitate data sharing, together with appropriate data protection safeguards; — recommends consulting the EDPS before the adoption by the Commission of a Recommendation on safeguarding the open internet for consumers; — reminds controllers and users that, while cloud computing presents specific challenges in terms of data protection, extensive guidance has been provided by data protection authorities on the application of current data protection law and by the EDPS on the impact of the proposed Data Protection Regulation on those challenges. This guidance should be relied upon in order to foster trust from individuals and from customers, which in turn will ensure the successful deployment of these new technological means.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fines in the case of each of the following cartels: (a) the CDT cartel and (b) the CPT cartel.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 10/6

Corrigendum to European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

( Official Journal of the European Union C 408 of 15 November 2014 )

(2015/C 10/06)

On page 11:

for:

‘http://www.acer.europa.eu/The_agency/Organisation/Administrative_Board/Pages/Opinions.aspx’,

read:
(4)

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Visa Europe, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against Visa Europe, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
4.

In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that: — GSM roaming outsourced data clearing services (‘DC services’) constitute a relevant product market, — outsourced near real time roaming data exchange services (‘NRTRDE services’) constitute a relevant product market, but it can be left open whether it is part of a broader market encompassing DC services, — the exact geographic scope of the markets for DC and NRTRDE services, i.e. EEA-wide or worldwide, can be left open since the competitive assessment would not change under both alternative market definitions, — the exact product and geographic definitions of the markets for (i) financial clearing services, (ii) A2P and P2P services and (iii) roaming hub services can be left open for the purpose of the assessment of the notified transaction since no competition concerns arise under any possible market definition.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusions that: 4.1. The notified transaction is unlikely to significantly impede effective competition in the markets for grey cement defined by circles with radii of 150 km or 250 km drawn around the parties' cement-production facilities in Germany, Belgium and France due to non-coordinated effects. A minority abstains. 4.2. In the current case the Commission does not need to conclude whether there is current coordination in the markets under investigation due to the lack of merger-specific effects. A minority abstains. 4.3. On balance, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the notified transaction would appreciably increase Holcim's retaliation potential against suppliers in North Rhine-Westphalia. A minority abstains. 4.4. On balance, it is unlikely that the notified transaction would make coordination easier, more stable or more effective to a degree that could be considered to give rise to a significant impediment to effective competition on the various geographic markets for grey cement defined by radii of 150 km or 250 km drawn around the parties' cement-production facilities in Germany, Belgium and France. A minority abstains. 4.5. The notified transaction is unlikely to significantly impede competition in the various geographic markets for grey cement defined by circles with radii of 150 km or 250 km drawn around the Parties' cement-production facilities in Germany, Belgium and France due to coordinated effects. A minority abstains. 4.6. The notified transaction is unlikely to significantly impede effective competition in the market for grey cement within a 150/250 km cluster around the Obourg plant due to non-coordinated and coordinated effects through a capacity reduction in Obourg. A minority abstains. 4.7. The notified transaction is unlikely to significantly impede effective competition on the relevant markets for: (i) granulated blast-furnace slag; and (ii) ground granulated blast-furnace slag. A minority abstains.