ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/10

Final Report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.5440 — Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines

(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)

2010/C 16/06

On 8 May 2009, 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 Deutsche Lufthansa AG (LH) acquires sole control of the undertaking Austrian Airlines (OS) by way of purchase of shares.

After examination of the notification, the Commission concluded on 1 July 2009 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.

LH did not request access to the key documents in the file.

LH submitted remedy proposals on 10 and 17 July 2009 with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market which were considered insufficient by the Commission. On 27 July 2009 LH submitted improved commitments that were market tested by the Commission. The finalised version of the remedy proposal was sent on 31 July 2009.

The Commission has concluded that the commitments 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.
5.

Only Traditional Licence applications will be accepted. 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; (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. The technical capability will be assessed in part upon the quality of analysis related to the block; (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.
5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreements and concerted practices between the addressees were capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between EU Member States and between contracting parties of the EEA.
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the addressees of the draft decisions have participated in an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 251/3

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case COMP/39.796 — Suez Environnement — Breach of seal

2011/C 251/03

This case concerns an infringement of procedural competition rules by the French group Suez Environnement Company SA (‘Suez Environnement’) and its subsidiary Lyonnaise des eaux France SA (‘LDE’) as a result of a breach of a seal affixed during an inspection by the Commission of LDE's headquarters in April 2010.

On 19 October 2010, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections, which was notified to Suez Environnement and LDE on 21 October 2010. The Statement of Objections came to the preliminary conclusion that a seal affixed at LDE's headquarters during the inspection conducted by the Commission in April 2010 had been broken within the meaning of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and that the Commission intended to impose a fine on LDE and Suez Environnement under that Article. The Statement of Objections also indicated that the Commission intended to hold Suez Environnement liable for the infringement committed by LDE.

On 8 December 2010, the parties, having been granted access to the Commission's case file, submitted their comments in reply to the Statement of Objections. I have not been informed of any incident relating to access to the file.

In their written comments, the parties did not contest that an infringement had taken place, but stated that the infringement had been committed as a result of negligence. They also argued, as a mitigating factor, that they had actively cooperated with the Commission once the breach of seal was discovered. The parties did not contest that liability for the infringement could be attributed to Suez Environnement.

In their written comments, the parties also indicated that they did not wish to exercise their right to a formal oral hearing.

After having examined the Commission's draft decision, I hereby confirm that the parties have been heard on all objections contained therein.

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

Brussels, 3 May 2011. Wouter WILS

(1) Pursuant to Article 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).
5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the conclusion that the agreement between the addressees was capable of having an appreciable effect upon trade between EU Member States and between contracting parties of the EEA.
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s definitions of the relevant markets in the draft decision.

In particular, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's approach to leave open in this case:

(a) the distinction between time-sensitive and non-time-sensitive passengers; and
1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment in its draft decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 21 November 2011 under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.
5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the adaptation of the fines based on point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/3

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

COMP/39.611 — Water management products

2012/C 335/03

On 27 January 2011, the European Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) against Flamco Wemefa GmbH, Flamco Holding B.V., voestalpine Polynorm B.V. and voestalpine AG (‘Flamco’), Reflex Winkelman GmbH & Co. and Winkelman Group GmbH & Co. KG (‘Reflex’) and TA Hydronics Switzerland AG (formerly ‘Pneumatex AG’ and hereafter referred to as ‘Pneumatex’) (together ‘the parties’).

Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3), the European Commission adopted a statement of objections (the ‘SO’) addressed to Flamco, Reflex and Pneumatex stating that the parties had participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The infringement was described as price coordination for water management products, comprising pressurisation systems and products for quality assurance. The parties' respective replies to the SO confirmed that the SO addressed to them reflected the contents of their settlement submissions.

Pursuant to Article 16 of the Terms of Reference, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (4), I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 25 June 2012. Wouter WILS

(1) Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision of the President of the European Commission 2011/695/EU of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings, OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29 (the ‘Terms of Reference’).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p.18.

(4) Under Article 15(2) of the Terms of Reference, parties to the proceedings in cartel cases which engage in settlement discussions pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 may call upon the hearing officer at any stage of the procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights. See also paragraph 18 of Commission Notice 2008/C 167/01.
10.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's conclusion that the proposed operation is not likely to significantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it, and that as a result it must be declared compatible with the internal market and 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/29

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS

Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

2013/C 37/07

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

Reference period: January 2013

Application period: April, May and June 2013

01-2013 EUR BGN CZK DKK LVL LTL HUF PLN 1 EUR = 1 1,95580 25,5625 7,46143 0,697845 3,45280 294,015 4,14239 1 BGN = 0,511300 1 13,0701 3,81503 0,356808 1,76542 150,330 2,11800 1 CZK = 0,0391198 0,0765105 1 0,291890 0,0272996 0,135073 11,5018 0,16205 1 DKK = 0,134023 0,262121 3,42595 1 0,0935271 0,462753 39,4046 0,555174 1 LVL = 1,43298 2,80263 36,6306 10,6921 1 4,94780 421,318 5,93597 1 LTL = 0,289620 0,566439 7,40341 2,16098 0,202110 1 85,1525 1,19972 1 HUF = 0,00340119 0,00665205 0,0869430 0,0253777 0,00237351 0,0117436 1 0,0140891 1 PLN = 0,241406 0,472143 6,17095 1,80124 0,168464 0,833528 70,9770 1 1 RON = 0,228129 0,446175 5,83155 1,70217 0,159199 0,787684 67,0732 0,944999 1 SEK = 0,115986 0,226846 2,96490 0,865423 0,0809405 0,400477 34,1017 0,480461 1 GBP = 1,20090 2,34872 30,6980 8,96042 0,838042 4,14647 353,082 4,97460 1 NOK = 0,135462 0,264937 3,46275 1,010740 0,0945316 0,467724 39,8278 0,561137 1 ISK = 0,00584781 0,0114372 0,149485 0,043633 0,00408087 0,0201913 1,71934 0,0242239 1 CHF = 0,813814 1,59166 20,8031 6,07221 0,567916 2,80994 239,273 3,37114





01-2013 RON SEK GBP NOK ISK CHF 1 EUR = 4,38349 8,62171 0,832709 7,38214 171,004 1,22878 1 BGN = 2,24128 4,40828 0,425764 3,77448 87,4343 0,628276 1 CZK = 0,171481 0,337280 0,0325754 0,288788 6,68965 0,0480697 1 DKK = 0,587486 1,15550 0,111602 0,989373 22,9184 0,164685 1 LVL = 6,28146 12,3548 1,19326 10,5785 245,046 1,76082 1 LTL = 1,26955 2,49702 0,241169 2,13801 49,5262 0,355880 1 HUF = 0,0149091 0,0293241 0,00283220 0,0251081 0,581618 0,00417932 1 PLN = 1,05820 2,08134 0,201021 1,78210 41,2815 0,296636 1 RON = 1 1,96686 0,189965 1,68408 39,0110 0,280321 1 SEK = 0,508424 1 0,0965828 0,856227 19,8341 0,142522 1 GBP = 5,26413 10,3538 1 8,86520 205,359 1,47564 1 NOK = 0,593796 1,16792 0,112801 1 23,1646 0,166453 1 ISK = 0,0256338 0,0504181 0,00486953 0,0431694 1 0,00718569 1 CHF = 3,56734 7,01647 0,677670 6,00769 139,166 1

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

reference: Jan-13 1 EUR in national currency 1 unit of N.C. in EUR BGN 1,95580 0,511300 CZK 25,5625 0,0391198 DKK 7,46143 0,134023 LVL 0,697845 1,43298 LTL 3,45280 0,289620 HUF 294,015 0,00340119 PLN 4,14239 0,241406 RON 4,38349 0,228129 SEK 8,62171 0,115986 GBP 0,832709 1,20090 NOK 7,38214 0,135462 ISK 171,004 0,00584781 CHF 1,22878 0,813814

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.
33.

The EDPS recommends that: — Article 89 of the proposed Regulation clarifies the reference to Directive 95/46/EC by specifying that the provisions will apply in accordance with the national rules which implement Directive 95/46/EC, — the proposed Regulation explicitly refers to Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 regarding the processing of personal data concerning health in Article 89, — Article 78 clarifies whether personal data concerning health will be processed in the EU database, and if so, for what purpose, — Article 78 refers to the right of the data subjects to block their personal data, — the proposed Regulation inserts, for the EMA database, a provision which more clearly defines in what situations and subject to what safeguards information containing patient data will be processed and stored, — it should be explicitly mentioned in Article 39 of the proposed Regulation that the annual reports should only be using anonymous data, — implementing measures to be adopted under the proposed Regulation specify in detail the data protection implications of the functional and technical characteristics of the EU database and the EMA database and that the EDPS be consulted on these measures, and — Article 55 of the proposed Regulation replaces or complements the minimum retention period of 5 years by a maximum retention period.
34.

The EDPS underlines that data protection requirements should be appropriately considered by industry, Member States and the Commission when implementing initiatives within the eHealth area. In particular he: — emphasizes that personal data processed in the context of eHealth and well-being ICT often relate to health data, which require a higher level of data protection and underlines the guidance already given to controllers and processors in the area, — notes that the Communication does not refer to the current data protection legal framework set forth under Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC, which contains the relevant data protection principles that are currently applicable and reminds the Commission that these rules are to be respected for any action to be taken in the short to medium term until the proposed revised data protection regulation enters into force, — notes that the importance of the data subject's rights of access and information in the context of eHealth has not been made clear in the Communication. He therefore encourages the Commission to draw the attention of controllers active in the field of eHealth on the necessity to provide clear information to individuals about the processing of their personal data in eHealth applications, — notes that the availability of guidance in respect of eHealth processing operations taking place under the current legal framework has not been emphasized in the Communication with specific references to the relevant documents and recommends that the Commission consults the Article 29 Working Party, in which the EU national data protection authorities are represented, and the EDPS in the preparation of such guidance, — recommends consulting the EDPS before the adoption by the Commission of a green paper on an EU framework applicable to mHealth and health and well-being mobile apps, — notes that the Communication does not underline that any data mining using non-anonymous health data is only acceptable under very limited circumstances and provided that full account is taken of data protection rules and encourages the Commission to draw the attention of controllers to this fact, — underlines that profiling should only be done in very limited circumstances and provided that strict data protection requirements must be met (e.g. as set forth in Article 20 of the proposed data protection regulation) and encourages the Commission to remind controllers of this important obligation, — reminds the Commission that any future work in the areas of facilitating wider deployment, supporting user skills and literacy should be pursued in due observance of the principles of data protection, — recommends that the Commission carries out a data protection impact assessment in the context of the development of a common European eHealth Interoperability Framework, before any further action is undertaken, — urges the Commission, when examining the interoperability of health records, to look into possible legislative initiatives at EU level, as he believes that such interoperability would benefit from a strong legal basis, which would include specific data protection safeguards.
30.

As to the proposed regulation, the EDPS recommends to: — set forth the modalities for the processing of personal data in the register and the electronic database in a substantive provision of the proposal and not in delegated acts, — insert a substantive provision specifying the types of personal data to be processed in the register and the electronic database, the purpose of their processing, the categories of recipients who are authorised access to the data (with the specification of which data), the data retention time limit(s), and the modalities for the information and the exercise of data subjects' rights, — clarify in Article 123c whether or not the exchanges of information between the Agency and national offices would include personal data, and if so, which ones. It should also specify: (i) that exchanges of personal data between the Agency and national offices must be carried out in compliance with applicable data protection law, in particular Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 as regards the processing by the Agency and Directive 95/46/EC as regards the processing by national offices; (ii) the purpose of such exchanges, in particular whether they bring additional purposes to the original ones of each database and portal, and if so, what is the legal basis for these additional purposes; and (iii) the types of data exchanged, the authorised recipients of the data, and the length of the retention of data in these IT systems, — assess the necessity and proportionality of disclosing personal data in the context of the publication of information contained in the electronic database. If it is the intention of the legislators to provide for the publication of personal data for carefully assessed purposes, the EDPS recommends including explicit provisions to that effect in the proposed regulation. As a minimum, a substantive provision should clarify what kind of personal data may be made public and for what purpose(s), — clarify in a substantive provision whether or not the means of cooperation would include the publication of court decisions relating to trade marks. If so, this substantive provision should define the conditions under which the publication of court decisions may take place. In this respect, the EDPS recommends that the publication of judgements on the Internet by the Agency and/or national central industrial property offices should take place under the condition that the indexing of judgments (and personal data contained therein) on external Internet search engines is technically prohibited or otherwise that it is considered whether the publication should be done on a no-name basis.
11.

I rejected this request for the following reasons. First, I informed the parties that the only interested third person attending the formal oral hearing was SFIR. Second, the parties’ argument that competitors should not have access to the information on the parties’ respective positions on the relevant market, is an argument which could equally be made for any formal oral hearing in any merger case. If accepted, it would thus deprive Article 13 of Decision 2011/695/EU of its meaning. Third, as EDFM’s joint venture partner in SRB, SFIR was party to EDFM’s commercial information regarding the supply of sugar in Italy. Thus, I found no reason why SFIR should not have access to any of the Notifying Party’s information which could be discussed in the presence of EDFM. Moreover, regarding the remedies proposal, SFIR was aware of the content, having been granted access to a nearly un-redacted version. Finally, both SFIR and EDFM are parties to the main contract covered by the remedies (the ‘Mitra’ contract).
5.

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