ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/6

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/E-2/39.142 —Toyota

(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 302/07)

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 Toyota brand vehicles.

The Commission opened an investigation into Toyota'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 Toyota seemed to have excluded all but its authorised repairers from full access to its technical information.

Ensuing discussions with the Commission services led Toyota to submit commitments on 22 January 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 Toyota.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the commitments proposed by Toyota, 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, Toyota having submitted a Declaration to the Commission to this effect on 25 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.
6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.
(13)

The agreement and concerted practices between Ackermann Nähgarne GmbH & Co, Amann und Söhne GmbH & Co KG, Barbour Threads Ltd, Belgian Sewing Thread NV, Bieze Storck BV, Coats Viyella plc, Gütermann AG and Zwicky & Co AG had as their primary objective the maintenance of high prices on the market for industrial thread sold in Benelux and in the Nordic countries. These agreements consisted in exchanges of price lists and discussion of these price lists; agreement on price list increases as well as on the dates of these increases; agreement on maximum rebates; agreement on prices to individual customers in order to avoid undercutting the incumbent supplier's prices and with a view to sharing customers; complaints to suppliers who had undercut and threats of retaliation; and agreement to contact suppliers who were not part of the agreement to persuade them to join. The meetings were very well organised and held at least once a year. They were split into two halves: a session during which the Nordic markets were discussed and a session during which the Benelux markets were discussed. In addition to the meetings, competitors used to contact each other to exchange information and to agree on prices they would apply to specific customers.
2.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Football Association Premier League's commitments introduce greater competition into the marketing of Premier League rights, provide a transparent and non-discriminatory sales procedure, ensure that no single purchaser will be able to buy all live TV rights, improve accessibility of content for TV, radio and new media operators and make sure that all rights are being made available to the market. A minority disagrees.
The majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that in the present case the relevant product markets are:

(a) the market for physical recorded music;

(b) the market for licensing of recorded music in digital format which might be further subdivided into markets for online and mobile digital music.

A minority of the members of the Advisory Committee disagrees with point 3(a).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/4

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4726 — Thomson Corporation/Reuters Group

(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)

(2008/C 212/03)

On 3 September 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking the Woodbridge Company Limited (‘Woodbridge’), which is the Thomson Corporation (‘Thomson’, Canada) family holding company, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the undertaking Reuters Group plc (‘Reuters’, United Kingdom), by way of scheme/plan of arrangement involving a dual-listed company structure.

After examination of the notification the Commission concluded on 8 October 2007 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Thomson and Reuters were given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules for merger cases, in the form of a selection of non-confidential versions of third parties' replies to the phase-one requests for information; these were provided to the notifying parties on 12 November 2007.

On 6 December 2007 Thomson and Reuters offered initial commitments and, following a market test conducted by the Commission, they offered on 21 December 2007 a final version of commitments with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market.

The Commission has concluded that the commitments entered into by Thomson and Reuters remove the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified operation with the common market. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party and the concentration is to be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Articles 8(2) and 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.
3.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the membership clause — which reflect the language of Article 11(II) of the CISAC model before the revision of June 2004 — incorporated in the reciprocal agreements between collecting societies constitutes an anti-competitive practice as defined under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) EEA and does not fulfil all the conditions of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(3) EEA. A minority abstains.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/10

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.629 — 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)

(2008/C 251/06)

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

The investigation in this case started following an application for immunity under the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (the Leniency Notice) (1) by Bayer AG on 18 December 2002. On 27 January 2003, the Commission granted Bayer AG conditional immunity pursuant to Article 8(a) of the Leniency Notice.

On 27 March and 9 July 2003, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of Dow Deutschland Inc. and Denka Chemicals GmbH, respectively.

Subsequently, the undertakings Tosoh, DuPont Dow Elastomers (DDE), Syndial and Polimeri submitted applications under the Leniency Notice.

On 13 March 2007, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections addressed to 12 legal entities belonging to 6 different groups of undertakings: Bayer AG, DuPont (E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Performance Elastomers LLC and DuPont Performance Elastomers SA), Dow Chemical Company, Denka (Denki Kagaku Kogyo KK and Denka Chemicals GmbH, Eni (Eni SpA, Syndial SpA and Polimeri Europa SpA) and Tosoh (Tosoh Corporation and Tosoh Europe BV).

In the Statement of Objections the Commission considered that the addressees had participated in a single and continuous infringement from at least 13 May 1993 to at least 13 May 2002. The cartel arrangement consisted of market and customer allocation, price agreements and exchange of sensitive information.

The addressees of the Statement of Objections were granted access to the file in the form of a DVD. In addition, oral statements and documents submitted to the Commission in the framework of the Leniency Notice were made accessible at the Commission's premises.

The parties were originally granted a deadline of 6 weeks from the receipt of the DVD to reply to the Statement of Objections. Following requests, a general extension, which amounted to around two weeks, was granted to all parties. None of parties turned to me subsequently for any further extensions and all parties replied in due time.

An oral hearing was held on 21 June 2007. All parties to the proceedings were represented at the hearing.

Following the parties written and oral submissions the objections raised against Syndial have been dropped, essentially on the basis that Polimeri, as Syndial's economic successor, is held liable for the latter's participation in the cartel.

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 to be heard has been respected in this case for all participants to the proceedings.

Brussels, 3 December 2007. Karen WILLIAMS

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.2002, p. 3.
2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that although the notified operation The members of the not have a community dimension within the meaning of article 1 of the Merger Regulation, it is capable of being reviewed under the national competition law in Austria, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Therefore, it can be examined by the Commission pursuant to Article 4 (5) of the Merger Regulation.
5.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree that the commitments offered by LKW and Telecom Liechtenstein do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to remove the restrictive effects of the non-competition obligations and strategic alignment provision.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's definition of the relevant market, so it can be left open: — whether there is one relevant product market of x86 Central Processing Units (CPUs) for all computers (i.e. desktop computers, laptop computers and server computers), or — whether there are three separate relevant product markets of: (i) x86 CPUs for desktop computers; (ii) x86 CPUs for laptop computers; and (iii) x86 CPUs for server computers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 201/4

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4919 — StatoilHydro/ConocoPhillips (1)

2009/C 201/05

On 14 March 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’) by which the undertaking StatoilHydro ASA, Norway, acquires the retail petroleum business of ConocoPhillips in Scandinavia.

After examination of the notification the Commission concluded on 13 May 2008 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’). The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

StatoilHydro ASA was given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules, in the form of a selection of non-confidential versions of third parties’ replies to the phase-one requests for information; these were provided to the notifying parties on 22 May 2008.

On 20 June 2008, the Commission sent an Article 11(3) decision to both StatoilHydro ASA and ConocoPhillips suspending the time limits because the parties failed to supply complete information regarding data of their retail stations in Denmark, Norway and Sweden over 2004-2008. This suspension ended on 18 July 2008.

On 27 June 2008 StatoilHydro ASA offered commitments with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market. StatoilHydro ASA submitted an improved remedy proposal on 25 July 2008 which was ‘market tested’ by the Commission. On 1 September 2008, StatoilHydro ASA submitted a second improved remedy proposal which had been amended to address certain shortcomings of the previous proposal identified during the market test.

The Commission has concluded that the commitments submitted by StatoilHydro ASA are sufficient to remove the serious doubts raised by the concentration. Accordingly, subject to the full compliance with the commitments submitted by the notifying party, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 6 October 2008. Michael ALBERS

(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.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the periods to be taken into account for imposing the fines, as being: (a) E.ON Ruhrgas: jointly and severally with E.ON: the period from 1 January 2003 until 30 September 2005, i.e. 2 years and 9 months. (b) E.ON Ruhrgas: from end of April 1998 as far as Germany is concerned and for the period from 10 August 2000 as far as France is concerned until 30 September 2005, i.e. 7 years and 5 months in Germany and 5 years, 1 month and 20 days in France. (c) GDF Suez: from the end of April 1998 as far as Germany in concerned and for the period from 10 August 2000 as far as France is concerned until 30 September 2005, i.e. 7 years and 5 months in Germany and 5 years, 1 month and 20 days in France.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/23

Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of 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

2009/C 320/10

The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in an area known as Terschelling-West.

The area covered by the application is in the province of Friesland and in territorial waters and is bounded by the straight lines joining the following vertices:

Vertex X Y 1 139 725,00 600 837,00 2 145 445,00 598 067,00 3 142 573,00 595 291,00 4 140 264,00 595 686,00 5 137 803,00 598 952,00

The above-mentioned vertices are defined by their geographical coordinates, calculated according to the National Triangulation System (RD, Rijks Driehoeksmeting).

On the basis of this description of the area, the surface area is 23,22 km2.

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 the area bounded by the above-mentioned vertices and coordinates.

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 above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (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 12 months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained by calling Mr E. J. Hoppel on the following telephone number: +31 703797088.
3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the markets to be considered are: (a) the markets for scheduled passenger air transport services, subdivided on the basis of point of origin/point of destination (O&D) pairs: — whereby for short-haul or medium-haul routes, indirect services do not generally constitute a competitive alternative to direct flights, — whereby for long-haul routes, indirect services could constitute competitive alternatives to direct flights between a given city pair, as long as (i) the indirect flights are marketed as connecting flights; and (ii) only cause a limited extension of the trip duration (connection time not exceeding 150 minutes); (b) the markets for air transport of cargo on a unidirectional basis between Europe and several African countries.
4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by Rambus Inc., there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/11

DECISION No 299

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 1-6 ‘Pelovo’, located in the province of Pleven

2010/C 236/10

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 1-6 ‘Pelovo’, situated in the province of Pleven 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 206/4

Notice of creditors’ meeting on the moratorium of Landsbanki Íslands hf. pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions

2010/C 206/04

A ruling by the Reykjavík District Court, pronounced on 27 November 2009, authorised the extension of the moratorium granted to Landsbanki Íslands hf., Reg. No 540291-2259, Austurstræti 16, 101 Reykjavík, which was originally granted on 5 December 2008, to 10.00 a.m. on 26 August 2010.

Kristinn Bjarnason, Supreme Court Attorney, serves as appointee for the moratorium of Landsbanki Íslands hf.

In accordance with the above, and with reference to Articles 13 and 14 of the Act on Bankruptcy etc., No 21/1991, cf. Article 2 of Act No 129/2008, a meeting of the bank’s creditors is hereby announced, to be held on Monday, 23 August 2010, at 9.00 a.m. at Hilton Hotel Nordica, Suðurlandsbraut 2, Reykjavík.

Furthermore, notice is hereby given that the Reykjavík District Court will convene in the courthouse on Lækjartorg Square in Reykjavík to review the moratorium on Thursday, 26 August 2010, at 10.00 a.m., as the moratorium granted to the bank by the ruling of the District Court expires at that time.

All parties with claims against Landsbanki Íslands hf. are entitled to attend the meeting. Further details of the meeting and the agenda will be published on the website of Landsbanki Íslands hf., http://www.lbi.is

Kristinn BJARNASON,

Supreme Court Attorney
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision with regard to the infringements.