ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank

of 18 April 2002

on a recommendation from the Council of the European Union on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank

(CON/2002/11)

(2002/C 100/06)

1. By letter of 15 April 2002, the President of the Council of the European Union requested the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) to deliver its opinion on the Council Recommendation of 15 April 2002 on the appointment of the Vice-President of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank (2002/287/EC)(1).

2. The abovementioned Recommendation, which will be submitted for decision to the Heads of State or Government of the Member States which have adopted the euro after consultation of the Governing Council of the ECB and the European Parliament, recommends that Mr Lucas D. Papademos be appointed as Vice-President of the Executive Board of the ECB for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2002.

3. The Governing Council of the ECB is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 112(2)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter referred to as the "Treaty").

4. The Governing Council of the ECB has no objection to the Council's Recommendation relating to the appointment of the proposed candidate as the Vice-President of the ECB. In accordance with Article 13.1 and Article 46.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Statute") the function of Vice-President is exercised by the same person in the three decision-making bodies of the ECB, and therefore the position should be officially termed as "Vice-President of the ECB" instead of "Vice-President of the Executive Board of the ECB".

5. The Governing Council of the ECB has adopted this opinion in accordance with Article 112(2)(b) of the Treaty and Article 11.2 and Article 43.3 of the Statute.

6. This opinion shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Frankfurt am Main on 18 April 2002.

On behalf of the Governing Council of the ECB

The President

Willem F. Duisenberg

(1) OJ L 101, 17.4.2002, p. 17.
Annual Report for 2001

(2002/C 252/04)

The European Ombudsman has preented the Annual Report for the year 2001 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 is available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 11 official languages at:

http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int

Paper copies can be obtained from the Publications Office of the European Communities.

The European Ombudsman may be contacted at: 1, avenue du Président-Robert-Schuman BP 403 F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. (33) 388 17 23 13 Fax (33) 388 17 90 62 E-mail: euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at its 98th meeting on 16 July 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2333 - De Beers/LVMH

(2003/C 27/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)b) of the Merger Regulation. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product markets in this case are

(a) the upstream market for the supply of rough diamonds

(b) the retail of diamond jewellery.

A minority disagrees on point 2(b).

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, it can be left open whether the production and sale of polished diamonds constitutes a separate relevant product market.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission that

(a) the market for the supply of rough diamonds is world wide

(b) the definition of the geographic scope of the market for the production and sale of polished diamonds can be left open

(c) the retail market for diamond jewellery is at the most EEA-wide

(d) if a narrower product market for the retail of branded diamond jewellery would exist, it would be worldwide.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that pre-merger De Beers has a dominant position in the market for the supply of rough diamonds.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the joint venture can be expected to achieve a leading position in the retail of higher-end branded diamond jewellery.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the joint venture is set up to promote the proprietary supply channel in the framework of the Forevermark stratregy.

8. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration will not significantly strengthen the dominant postion of De Beers in the market for the supply of rough diamonds. A minority abstains. A minority disagrees.

9. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration therefore can be declared compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. A minority abstains. A minority disagrees.

10. The Committee asks the Commission to take into account the other points raised during the discussion of this case.

11. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
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 to prospect for, exploit and extract hydrocarbons(1)

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, designated the "Bleue Lorraine" license)

(This text annuls and replaces that already published in the Official Journal of the European Union C 153 of 1 July 2003, page 83)

(2003/C 159/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By request of 17 July 2002, supplemented and amended on 15 January and 19 February 2003, Heritage Petroleum plc, with registered offices at 15 Bloomsbury Square, London WC1A 2LS (United Kingdom), applied for an exclusive five-year licence, designated the "Bleue Lorraine licence", to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in an area of approximately 821 km2 forming part of the department of Moselle.

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

>TABLE>

Vertex 2 = Intersection of parallel 54,80 degrees N and the Franco-German border.

Vertex 3 = Intersection of meridian 5,30 degrees E and the Franco-German border.

>TABLE>

2 to 3 = Franco-German border.

Interested companies may, within 90 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 the 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 (Journal officiel de la République française 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, (tel. (33) 144 97 02 30, fax (33) 144 97 05 70).

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.
Final report of the Hearing Officer

in case COMP/M.2530 - Südzucker/Saint Louis Sucre

(prepared under Article 15 of Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings - OJ L 162 of 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2003/C 97/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision does not give rise to particular observations. The proceedings took a normal course. The rights of parties to be heard were fully respected.

One association who had replied to a letter sent under Article 11 of the Merger Regulation asked to be present at the Hearing in order to get clarification on the future of the European sugar regime and to prepare for a study on the image of the sugar sector. This request was rejected since this association which had not introduced a request under Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 neither justified having a sufficient interest in the present case within the meaning of Article 18 of the Merger Regulation nor did it make clear which point it wanted to make at the hearing.

Brussels, 5 December 2001.

Bernd Langeheine
Assignment of the Judges to the Chambers

(2003/C 255/10)

At its meeting on 9 October 2003, the Court decided to assign the Judges to the Chambers as follows:

First Chamber:

P. Jann, President of Chamber, and D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges.

Second Chamber:

C. W. A. Timmermans, President of Chamber, and C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges.

Third Chamber:

A. Rosas, President of Chamber, and D. A. O. Edward, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges.

Fourth Chamber:

J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of Chamber, and J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and K. Lenaerts, Judges.

Fifth Chamber:

C. Gulmann, President of Chamber, and A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2861 - Siemens/Drägerwerk/JV

(drawn up in accordance with Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21))

(2003/C 269/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 December 2002, the Commission received notification pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 4064/89 of a merger through which Siemens AG was to acquire from Drägerwerk AG joint control of Dräger Medical AG & Co. KgaA, currently controlled by Drägerwerk AG alone. Initial investigation showed that the case involved competition problems. Formal proceedings were accordingly initiated under Article 6(1)(c) of the Regulation.

Siemens AG and Drägerwerk AG have offered specific commitments that overcome the problems posed. No statement of objections has therefore been sent to the parties. The parties have not requested access to the file. Neither have the parties nor any third parties raised objections on the conduct of the proceedings.

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

Brussels, 3 April 2003.

Serge Durande
The European Ombudsman addressed two special reports to the European Parliament (made in accordance with Art. 3 (7) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman(1)) in the year 2002

(2003/C 270/07)

Special Report of 11 December 2002 from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the European Parliament in complaint 341/2001/(BB)IJH.

Special Report of 12 December 2002 from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 1542/2000/(PB)SM.

The texts of these special reports are available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 11 official languages at: http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int

Paper copies can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office: 1, avenue du Président Robert Schuman BP 403 F - 67001 Strasbourg Cedex Tel. (33) 388 17 23 13 Fax (33) 388 17 90 62 E-mail: euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int

(1) Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman's Duties (OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15).
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

(2004/C 30/03)

>TABLE>

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.

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.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/38.170 - Reims II

(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))

(2004/C 48/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 June 2001 seventeen Public Postal Operators ("PPOs") re-notified to the Commission an amended version of the Reims II Agreement. The re-notification included a request for a renewal of the exemption, granted by the Commission by Decision of 15 September 1999 until 31 December 2001.

On 11 July 2001 the Commission published a summary of the agreement, inviting comments from interested parties. Thereafter the Commission launched an investigation of the amended agreement. Meetings were held with the majority of the parties concerned at both bilateral and multilateral level, as well as with a number of interested third parties. Following discussions with the Commission services the parties further modified the Agreement on 24 January 2003 in order to meet the competition concerns identified by the Commission's inquiry.

On 23 April 2003 the Commission published a notice pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation 17/62 setting out the main elements of the agreement and indicating that the Commission proposed to take a positive view subject to certain requirements relating to third party access to Reims II terminal dues. These requirements had been discussed with the parties. Third parties were invited by the Commission to provide their comments.

Comments were received from a number of third parties. These comments were transmitted to the parties. Following assessment by the Commission services, a further requirement was added in order to enable an exemption to be made available. This was discussed with the parties concerned. The parties were also informed that these requirements would be included as a condition for granting the exemption.

The draft decision grants an exemption pursuant to Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty subject to compliance with conditions. The duration of the exemption has been clearly specified.

The rights to be heard in the present case have been respected.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2003.

Karen Williams
Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3056 - Celanese/Degussa/JV (European oxo Chemicals)

(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))

(2004/C 36/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations:

The proposed concentration was notified under the Merger Regulation to the Commission by Celanese Chemicals Europe GmbH ("Celanese"), a subsidiary of Celanese AG, and Oxeno Olefinchemie GmbH ("Oxeno"), a subsidiary of Degussa AG ("Degussa" on 18 December 2002.

On 30 January 2003 proceedings were initiated under Article 6(1)(c) of the Regulation. The parties were given access to the most important submissions on which the Commission based its serious doubts. This is an important feature of the transparency policy that the Commission is currently putting into place.

A statement of objections was sent to the parties on 9 April 2003. Access to the file was provided by means of a CD-ROM received by the parties on 10 April.

The parties provided a joint response to the statement of objections on 25 April 2003, in accordance with the deadline stipulated by the Commission.

The parties waived their right to a formal oral hearing.

After their reply to the statement of objections, a second CD-ROM containing additional documents placed on the file was transmitted to the parties. A new deadline of 14 May was set for any additional observations.

On 5 May a state of play meeting took place between the Commission services and the parties at which the parties were informed that objections on certain product markets had been dropped but that competition concerns remained as to others.

On 6 May the parties submitted commitments within the permitted deadline to the Commission in order to resolve outstanding competition concerns. These commitments were then market tested.

On 14 May the relevant Commission service received a letter from the parties, maintaining that the rights to defence had been infringed in particular by the fact that the information contained on the second CD-ROM was sent so late. However, on the same date the Commission service also wrote to the parties, informing them of the intention to drop the remaining objections, and to propose a draft clearance decision. At that point in time any issues relating to the rights of the parties to be heard effectively became moot.

In the letter to the parties, they were given the opportunity to withdraw the commitments they had offered to the Commission. However, it was stated that, if retained, the Commission would take note of them in the clearance decision. The parties responded to the Commission's letter on 22 May, confirming their willingness to maintain their commitments.

Done at Brussels, 3 June 2003.

Karen Williams
52004XX0330(05)

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2420 — Mitsui/CVRD/Caemi (prepared under Articel 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)) (Text with EEA relevance)



Official Journal C 079 , 30/03/2004 P. 0012 - 0012
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 101st meeting on 1 October 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to case IV/M.2187 - CVC/Lenzing

(2004/C 69/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and has a Community Dimension as defined by Article 1(2) of that Regulation.

2. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product markets comprise:

(a) commodity viscose staple fibres;

(b) spundyed viscose staple fibres;

(c) viscose staple fibres for tampons;

(d) lyocell; and

(e) lyocell production and processing technology.

A minority disagrees in regard to (b) and (c)

3. In relation to the product markets identified in point 2, the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the geographic scope of markets (a), (b) and (c) is the EEA, of market (d) is at least the EEA but that this can be left open, and of market (e) is world-wide.

4. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration would lead to the creation of a dominant position in the markets for:

(a) commodity viscose staple fibres in the EEA;

(b) spundyed viscose staple fibres in the EEA;

(c) lyocell in the EEA or wider than EEA market;

(d) lyocell production and processing technology worldwide;

and to the strengthening of a dominant position in the market for

(e) viscose staple fibres for tampons in the EEA;

as a result of which effective competition in the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement would be significantly impeded.

A minority disagrees in regard to (b) and (e).

5. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the undertakings submitted by CVC on 25 September 2001 are insufficient to remedy the competition concerns in any of the markets on which the notified concentration would lead to the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.

A minority declined to give a view on the adequacy or otherwise of the proposed commitments since they consider the Commission breached its obligation under Article 19(5) of the ECMR to send important documents to Member States 14 days before the meeting.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration should be declared incompatible with the Common Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

7. The Advisory Committee invites the Commission to take account of all the points raised in the discussion.

8. The Advisory Committee recommends publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at the 108th meeting on 12 April 2002 concerning a draft decision relating to case COMP/M.2547 - Bayer/Aventis Crop Science

(2004/C 91/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments submitted by the parties on 10 April 2002 are sufficient to remove the competition concerns. A minority does not agree. Another minority abstains.

2. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation should be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement. A minority does not agree. Another minority abstains.

3. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

4. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all points raised during the discussion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 62/8

Notice of 21 January 2005 from the Malta 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)

(2005/C 62/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

In accordance with Article 3(3) 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, the Minister for Resources and Infrastructure of the Republic of Malta hereby notifies that the following areas (or parts thereof) in offshore Malta are available for authorisation on a permanent basis under either an Exploration Licence or an Exploration and Production Licence:

(i) Area 1

(ii) Area 3 (except Blocks indicated below)

(iii) Area 4 (except Block indicated below)

(iv) Area 6

The following Areas/Blocks are already under an authorisation granted prior to 1 May 2004 and are not available until further notification:

(i) Area 2

(ii) Block 4 and Block 5 of Area 3

(iii) Block 3 of Area 4

(iv) Area 5

(v) Area 7

Applicants shall provide the information requested in the form published in the Petroleum (Production) Regulations, 2001 (Legal Notice 320 of 2001, 1 December 2001).

The Areas/Blocks available for authorisation as well as the Areas/Blocks already under an authorisation are delimited by geographical coordinates that may be obtained, together with other information, by contacting the Oil Exploration Department at the Ministry for Resources and Infrastructure, Block B, Floriana CMR 02, Malta, on telephone number (356) 21 23 79 21.

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