Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2822 — ENBW/ENI/GVS (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)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: audit, economic concentration, electrical industry, energy distribution, heating, merger control, petroleum exploration, telecommunications, waste recycling

30.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/11

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2822 — ENBW/ENI/GVS

(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))

(2003/C 233/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The parties did accept the competition concerns from the outset. No reply to the 6(1)(c) decision was
submitted by the parties. They proposed acceptable remedies at an early stage of phase II, which were
slightly modified following the market test in order to reflect specific competition concerns raised by third
parties in the market test. Therefore, no statement of objections was sent, no access to file took place as
well as no hearing.

Neither the parties nor any third party did question the way the market test was handled.

The case, therefore, does not give rise to any observations on the right to be heard.

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2002.

Serge DURANDE

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 111th meeting on 22 July
2002 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2706 — Carnival/P & O

(2003/C 233/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concen-

tration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

2. 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.

3. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case,
the relevant product market is the market of oceanic cruises. A minority disagrees because it considers
there is a relevant product market for the provision of premium cruises in the United Kingdom.
Another minority disagrees because it believes that the Commission has not adequately demonstrated
that the relevant product market is not wider.

4. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market

for oceanic cruises is national. A minority abstains.

5. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation does not
strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly
impeded in a substantial part of the Common Market, so that the concentration should be declared
compatible with the Common Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article
8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. A minority disagrees because it
considers the operation will create a dominant position in the market for the provision of premium
cruises in the United Kingdom.

6. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official

Journal of

the

European Union.

7. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account the remarks and comments made

by the Advisory Committee.