Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of the agreements between the European Communities and the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada regarding the application of their competition laws 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002
Date: 2003-08-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, United States, competition law, trade agreement (EU)

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 13.8.2003
COM(2003) 500 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the application of the agreements
between the European Communities
and the Government of the United States of America
and the Government of Canada
regarding the application of their competition laws

1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002

1.

UNITED STATES

1.1.

Introduction

On 23.09.1991 the Commission concluded an Agreement with the Government of the United
States  of  America  regarding  the  application  of  their  competition  laws1  (the  “1991
Agreement”),  the  aim  of  which  is  to  promote  co-operation  between  the  competition
authorities.  By  a  joint  decision  of  the  Council  and  the  Commission  on  10.04.19952  the
Agreement  was  approved  and  declared  applicable  from  the  date  it  was  signed  by  the
Commission.

On  04.06.1998  another  agreement,  which  strengthens  the  positive  comity  provisions  of  the
1991 Agreement, entered into force3 (the "1998 Agreement"), after having been approved by
a joint decision of the Council and the Commission of 29.05.1998.

On  08.10.1996  the  Commission  adopted  the  first  report  on  the  application  of  the  1991
Agreement  for  the  period  of  10.04.1995  to  30.06.19964.  The  second  report  completes  the
1996 calendar year, covering the period of 01.07.1996 to 31.12.19965. The third report covers
the whole calendar year 19976, the fourth the year 19987, the fifth the year 19998, the sixth the
year 20009, and the seventh for the year 200110.The current report concerns the calendar year
from the 01.01.2002  to  31.12.2002.  This  report  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with  the  first
report  which  sets  out  in  detail  the  benefits,  but  also  the  limitations  of  this  kind  of  co-
operation.

In summary, the 1991 Agreement provides for:

– 

– 

– 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

notification of cases being handled by the competition authorities of one Party, to the
extent that these cases concern the important interests of the other Party (Article II),
and exchange of information on general matters relating to the implementation of the
competition rules (Article III);

co-operation and co-ordination of the actions of both Parties' competition authorities
(Article IV);

a  "traditional  comity"  procedure  by  virtue  of  which  each  Party  undertakes  to  take
into  account  the  important  interests  of  the  other  Party  when  it  takes  measures  to
enforce its competition rules (Article VI);

Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Commission  of  the
European Communities regarding the application of their competition laws (OJ L 95, 27.4.1995, pp. 47
and 50)
See OJ L 95, 27.4.1995, pp.45 and 46.
Agreement between the European Communities and the Government of the United States of  America
on the application of positive comity principles in the enforcement of their competition laws, OJ L 173,
18.6.1998, pp. 26–31.
Com(96) 479 final, see XXVIth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 299-311.
Com(97) 346 final, see XXVIth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 312-318.
Com(98) 510 final, see XXVIIth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 317-327.
Com(1999) 439 final, see XXVIIIth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 313-328.
Com(2000) 618 final, see XXIXth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 319-332.
Com(2001)45 final, see XXXth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 291-307.
Com(2002)505 final.

2

                                                
– 

a  "positive  comity"  procedure  by  virtue  of  which  either  Party  can  invite  the  other
Party to take, on the basis of the latter's legislation, appropriate measures regarding
anti-competitive  behaviour  implemented  on  its  territory  and  which  affects  the
important interests of the requesting Party (Article V).

In addition, the 1991 Agreement makes it clear that none of its provisions may be interpreted
in  a  manner  which  is  inconsistent  with  legislation  in  force  in  the  European  Union  and  the
United States of America (Article IX). In particular, the competition authorities remain bound
by their internal rules regarding the protection of the confidentiality of information gathered
by them during their respective investigations (Article VIII).

The  1998  Agreement  clarifies  both  the  mechanics  of  the  positive  comity  co-operation
instrument, and the circumstances in which it can be availed of. In particular, it describes the
conditions  under  which  the  requesting  Party  should  normally  suspend  its  own  enforcement
actions and make a referral.

1.2.

EU/US cooperation during 2002

During 2002, the Commission continued its close cooperation with the Antitrust Division of
the US Department  of Justice (DoJ)  and  the US  Federal  Trade  Commission  (FTC).  Contact
between Commission officials and their counterparts at the two US agencies was frequent and
intense.  These  contacts  range  from  detailed  case-related  discussions  to  more  general,
sometimes theoretical, competition policy-related matters. Case related contacts usually take
the  form  of  regular  telephone  calls,  e-mails,  exchanges  of  documents,  and  other  contacts
between  the  case  teams.  High-level  meetings  and  contacts  also  occur  with  reasonable
frequency.  The  cooperation  continues  to  be  of  considerable  mutual  benefit  to  both  sides,  in
terms  of  enhancing  the  respective  enforcement  activity,  avoiding  unnecessary  conflicts  or
inconsistencies  between  those  enforcement  activities,  and  in  terms  of  better  understanding
each other's competition policy regimes.

1.2.1. Merger cases

In line with  the overall  economic  climate  the  number  of  transnational  mergers  decreased  in
the  year  2002.  Nevertheless,  the  year  2002  saw  a  continued  good  cooperation  in  those
transactions notified to both the Commission and the US antitrust agencies. With regard to the
investigation  of  these  proposed  mergers,  staff-level  contacts  between  DG  Competition’s
Merger Task Force, on the one hand, and the US DoJ and FTC, on the other, take place on a
very frequent basis. Cooperation is most effective where the parties involved agree to permit
the EU and US authorities to share the information they provide by means of a waiver which
now frequently occurs.

In the Solvay/Ausimont case, a merger in the chemicals industry, the Commission and the US
Federal  Trade  Commission  fully  and  intensely  cooperated  not  only  with  respect  to  the
substantive  assessment  of  the  case  but  also  to  the  suitability  of  the  remedies  with  contacts
occurring  on  a  more  or  less  daily  basis.  In  some  instances,  three-way  (EU  Commission-US
FTC-merging  parties)  telephone  conferences  were  conducted.  The  same  is  true  for  the
analysis  of  Bayer's  acquisition  of  Aventis  Crop  Science  (case  Bayer/Aventis).  Again,
cooperation  was  particularly  intensive  in  relation  to  the  various  remedies  proposed  by  the
merging parties to address the agencies' common concerns in a multiplicity of markets. In this
case, there was also three-way communication, including the Canadian Competition Bureau.
Both  operations  were  finally  approved  subject  to  undertakings.  In  the  analysis  of  P/O
Princess/Carnival  ,  the  cruise  line  merger,  the  Commission's  and  FTC's  staff  were  in  close

3

and  frequent  contact  throughout  the  investigation,  much  of  the  discussion  was  focused  on
issues  of  market  definition.  The  operation  was  approved  by  the  Commission  and  not
challenged by the FTC.

1.2.2. Non-merger cases

During  the  course  of  the  year  there  was  also  frequent  contacts  in  a  number  of  non-merger
cases. In the Microsoft case, the Commission and the US DoJ kept each other informed about
the  status  of  their  respective  investigations.  Bilateral  cooperation  between  the  Commission
and  the  US  DoJ  was  particularly  intensified  in  cartel  cases:  numerous  contacts  took  place
between  officials  of  the  Commission’s  cartel  units  and  their  counterparts  at  the  DoJ.  The
exchanges of information on particular cases, within the limits of the existing provisions on
confidentiality, were most frequent, but discussions also concerned policy issues. There were
15  Commission  investigations  for  which  effective  co-operation  took  place.  Most  contacts
were established via telephone and e-mail, but in some instances meetings were held. Many of
the case related contacts took place as a  result of simultaneous applications for immunity in
the US and the EC. Furthermore, in a number of instances, co-ordinated enforcement actions
took place in the US and the European Union, whereby the agencies tried to ensure that the
time  lapse  between  the  start  of  the  respective  actions  was  as  short  as  possible.  General
consultations  took  place  on  the  application  of  the  respective  leniency  policies  of  both
agencies. Another  important issue which  was  discussed  with  the  Department  of  Justice  was
the  discovery  in  US  civil  litigation  of  evidence  submitted  to  cartel  authorities.  The
Commission  intervened  in  three  US  civil  trials  in  order  to  protect  written  information
submitted in the framework of the Commission’s leniency policy vis-à-vis such "discovery".
Those  interventions  were  intended  to  safeguard  the  integrity  of  the  Commission’s  leniency
policy, and were not made in support of any of the parties in such civil procedures.

1.3.

High-level contacts

There were numerous high-level bilateral contacts between the Commission and the relevant
US authorities during the course of 2002. On 23 July 2002 Commissioner Mario Monti met in
Brussels  the  heads  of  the  US  and  antitrust  agencies,  Assistant  Attorney  General  Charles
James,  and  Chairman  Timothy  Muris  of  the  Federal  Trade  Commission  for  the  annual
bilateral EU/US meeting.

1.4.

EU/US Working Groups

The  work  of  the  joint  EU/US  Working  Groups  continued.  The  activities  of  the  existing
EU/US  Mergers  Working  Group  were  expanded  and  work  intensified.  DG  COMP  agreed
with the US agencies that the Working Group should consist of a number of sub-groups. One
sub-group has been dealing with procedural issues and two other sub-groups with substantive
issues (one with conglomerate aspects of mergers, and another with the role of efficiencies in
merger control analysis). The fruitful discussion on remedies also continued.

To  date,  work  has  been  completed  in  the  sub-groups  on  procedural  issues  and  on
conglomerate aspects of mergers. In each of these sub-groups, a series of video-conferences
was conducted, involving presentations and discussions of each other’s policy  approach  and
of the lessons learned from the review of mergers. The officials involved also made a visit to
each other's agencies, in February (meetings in Brussels for the procedural sub-group) and in
June (meetings in Washington for the conglomerates sub-group).

4

Work  in  the  sub-group  dealing  with  efficiencies  in  merger  control  is  still  in  progress.  The
objective  of  the  sub-group  on  efficiencies  is  to  discuss  the  consideration  to  be  given  to
efficiencies in  merger  control analysis. Work in the  sub-group  commenced  in August 2002,
and was ongoing at the end of 2002.

Best practices on EU/US cooperation in merger cases.

On  30  October  2002,  Commissioner  Monti  with  his  US  counterparts,  Timothy  Muris,
Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Charles James, US Assistant Attorney-
General for Antitrust issued a set of best practices on co-operation in reviewing mergers that
require approval on both sides of the Atlantic, with a view to minimising the risk of divergent
outcomes, and to enhancing the good relationship developed over the last decade. They result
from  the  deliberations  of  the  procedures  sub-group  of  the  EU-US  Merger  Working  Group,
which  brought  together  experienced  officials  from  the  three  agencies,  and  which  had  been
closely  studying  how  the  effectiveness  of  EU-US  cooperation  in  merger  cases  might  be
further improved.

The  best  practices  put  in  place  a  more  structured  basis  for  co-operation  in  reviews  of
individual merger cases. The best practices recognise that cooperation is most effective when
the investigation  timetables of the  reviewing  agencies run  more  or  less  in  parallel.  Merging
companies  will  therefore  be  offered  the  possibility  of  meeting  at  an  early  stage  with  the
agencies to  discuss  timing  issues.  Companies  are  also  encouraged  to  permit  the  agencies  to
exchange information which they have submitted  during the course  of  an  investigation  and,
where  appropriate,  to  allow  joint  EU/US  interviews  of  the  companies  concerned.  The
practices moreover designate key points in  the  respective  EU  and  US  merger  investigations
when it may be appropriate for direct contacts to occur between senior officials on both sides.

At the occasion of the bilateral meeting of 23 July 2002 both sides agreed to set up a working
group on intellectual property rights issues. Work started in November 2002.

1.5.

Statistical information

a)

Number of cases notified by the Commission and by the US authorities

There  was  a  total  of  63  formal  notifications  made  by  the  Commission  during  the  period
between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2002. The cases are divided into merger and non-
merger cases and are listed in Annex 1.

The Commission received a total of 44 formal notifications from the US authorities during the
same period. A list of these cases is found in Annex 2, again broken down into merger and
non-merger cases.

Merger  cases  made  up  the  majority  of  all  notifications  in  both  directions.  There  were  56
merger notifications made by the Commission and 27 by the US authorities.

The  figures  given  represent  the  number  of  cases  in  which  one  (or  more)  notifications  took
place and not the total number of individual notifications. Under Article II of the Agreement,
notifications  may  be  made  at  various  stages  of  the  procedure  and  so  more  than  one
notification may be made concerning the same case.

5

b)

Notifications by the Commission to Member States

The text of the interpretative letter sent by the European Communities to the US as well as the
Statement  on  Transparency  made  by  the  Commission  to  the  Council  on  10  April  1995,
provides that the Commission, after notice to the US Competition authorities, will inform the
Member State or Member States, whose interests are affected, of the notifications sent to it by
the  US  antitrust  authorities.  Thus,  when  notifications  are  received  from  the  US  authorities,
they are forwarded immediately to the relevant sections in DG Competition and at the same
time copies are sent to the Member States, if any, whose interests are affected. Equally, at the
same time that DG Competition makes notifications to the US authorities, copies are sent to
the Member State(s) whose interests are affected.

1.6.

Conclusions

2002 witnessed a further intensification of EU/US cooperation in all areas of competition law
enforcement.  The  further  increase  of  cooperation  in  2002  with  respect  to  the  combating  of
global  cartels  is  noteworthy,  also  the  authorities  on  the  two  sides  of  the  Atlantic  are  taking
increasingly convergent approaches to the identification and implementation of remedies, and
to  post-merger  remedy  compliance  monitoring.  The  Commission,  DoJ  and  FTC  also
continued to maintain an ongoing dialogue on general competition policy/enforcement issues
of common concern.

6

2.

CANADA

2.1.

Introduction

The  EU/Canada  Competition  Co-operation  Agreement11  is  designed  to  facilitate
cooperation  between  the  European  Communities  and  Canada  with  respect  to  the
enforcement  of  their  respective  competition  rules.  The  agreement  was  signed  at  the
EU/Canada Summit in Bonn on 17 June 1999 and entered into force at signature.

The  Agreement  provides  for,  among  other  things:  (i)  reciprocal  notification  of
enforcement  activities  by  either  competition  authority,  where  such  activities  may
affect  the  important  interests  of  the  other  party;  (ii)  one  competition  authority
rendering assistance to the competition authority of the other party in its enforcement
activities; (iii) coordination by the two authorities of their enforcement activities; (iv)
requests by a party that the competition authority of the other party take enforcement
action (positive comity); (v) one party to take into account the important interests of
the other party in the course of its enforcement activities (traditional comity); and (vi)
the exchange of information between the parties, subject to applicable domestic laws
to  protect  confidential  information.  The  report  on  cooperation  between  17.  06.1999
and 31. 12. 2000 was published together with the sixth report on cooperation with the
United  States,12the  seventh  report  covered 
to
31.12.2001.13  The  current  report  concerns  the  calendar  year  from  01.01.2002  to
31.12.2002.

the  period  from  01.01.2001 

2.2.

Cooperation

An increasing number of  cases  is  being  examined  by  the  competition  authorities  on
both  sides  resulting  in  increased  and  enhanced  cooperation.  Contacts  between  the
Commission  and  the  Canadian  Competition  Bureau  have  been  frequent  and  fruitful.
Discussions have concerned both case related issues, and more general policy issues.
Case related contacts usually take the form of telephone calls, e-mails, exchanges of
documents,  and  other  contacts  between  the  case  teams.  Case  related  contacts
comprised  all  areas  of  competition  law  enforcement.  Particularly  intensive  contact
took  place  in  the  Bayer/Aventis  merger  case,  where  there  was  also  three-way
communication  including  the  US  authorities.  There  was  also  some  contact  with
respect to the Pfizer/Pharmacia merger case. Cooperation and coordination efforts in
cartel cases continued as well.

At  the  occasion  of  two  bilateral  meetings  of  the  merger  and  cartel  units  from  the
respective authorities policy related issues specific to their areas of enforcement were
discussed. Furthermore, for the first time in 2002 a staff exchange for a period of six
months  was  organised  and  an  official  from  the  Commission  and  one  from  the
Competition Bureau were seconded to the other agency. Each exchange officer took

11

12

13

Agreement between the European Communities and the Government of Canada regarding the
application of the competition laws OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 50.
Com(2001)45 final, see XXXth Report on Competition Policy, pp. 291-307.
Com (2002) 505 final.

7

                                                
on the responsibilities of a regular case officer in  the  host  jurisdiction  involving  the
investigation and analysis of merger cases.

2.3.

Statistical information

a)

Number  of  cases  notified  by  the  Commission  and  by  the  Canadian
Competition Bureau

There was a total of 5 formal notifications made by the Commission during the period
between  1 January  2002  and  31  December  2002  (Annex  3).  The  Commission
received 9 formal notifications from the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) in 2002
with respect to 5 cases (Annex 4).

b)

Notifications by the Commission to Member States

As  foreseen  in  the  agreement,  the  Commission  has  informed  the  Member  State  or
Member  States,  whose  interests  are  affected,  of  the  notifications  sent  to  it  by  the
Canadian  Competition  Bureau.  Thus,  when  notifications  are  received  from  the
Competition Bureau, they are forwarded immediately to the relevant sections in DG
Competition and at the same time copies are sent to the Member States, if any, whose
interests  are  affected.  Equally,  at  the  same  time  that  DG  Competition  makes
notifications to the Competition Bureau, copies are sent to the Member State(s) whose
interests are affected.

2.4.

Conclusion

The  Cooperation  Agreement  has  lead  to  a  closer  relationship  between  the
Commission  and  the  Canadian  Competition  Bureau,  as  well  as  to  a  greater
understanding of each other’s competition policy. An increasing number of cases are
being examined by both competition authorities, and there is consequently a growing
recognition of the importance of coordinating enforcement activities to the extent that
this is considered mutually beneficial by both parties and of the necessity of avoiding
conflicting  decisions.  The  Commission  and  the  Canadian  Competition  Bureau  also
competition
continued 
policy/enforcement issues of common concern.

to  maintain 

an  ongoing 

dialogue 

general 

on 

8

ANNEX 114

Notification by the European Commission to the US Authorities

01.01.2002 –31.12.2002

MERGER CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMP.M.2609 Hewlett Packard/Compaq

COMP.M.2666

Berkshire Hathaway/Fruit of the Loom

COMP.M.2544 Masterfoods/Royal Canin

COMP.M.2693 ADM/ACTI

COMP.M.2665

Johnson Professional Holdings/Diversey Lever

COMP.M.2734

Sanmina/SCI Corporation/Alcatel

COMP.M.2720 Alcoa/Elkem

COMP.M.2681

Conoco/Phillips Petroleum

COMP.M.2672

SAS/Spanair

10 COMP.M.2726 KPN/E-Plus

11 COMP.M.2705

EnerSys/Invensys (ESB)

12 COMP.M.2706

Carnival Corporation / P&O Princess

13 COMP.M.2738 GEES/Union

14 COMP.M.2780 General Electric/ENRON Wind Turbine Business

15 COMP.M.2800

Brack Capital/Haslemere

16 COMP.M.2815

Sanmina-SCI-Hewlett Packard

17 COMP.M.2823

Bank One Corporation/Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG

18 COMP.M.2785

Publicis/Bcom3

14

Due  to  confidentiality  requirements  or  to  protect  the  secrecy  of  ongoing  investigations,  this
list names only those investigations or cases which have been made public

9

                                                
19 COMP.M.2841

TXU-Braunschweiger Versorgungs AG

20 COMP.M.2832 General Motors/Daewoo Motors

21 COMP.M.2891

CD&R Fund VI Limited/Brake Bros. Plc.

22 COMP.M.2890

Edf/Seeboard

23 COMP.M.2860

Lehman Brothers/Haslemere

24 COMP.M.2882

TEREX/DEMAG

25 COMP.M.2920 Outokumpu Oy/Lennox International Inc.

26 COMP.M.2930 KKR/Demag Holding/Siemens Businesses

27 COMP.M.2915 DLJ Capital Funding Inc./Hamsard-Bowater

28 COMP.M.2934

Prudential Financial/Sal. Oppenheim

29 COMP.M.2901 Magna/Donnelly

30 COMP.M.2946

IBM/PwC Consulting

31 COMP.M.2874

StarCore LLC

32 COMP.M.2886

Bunge/Cereol

33 COMP.M.2781 Northrop Grumman/TRW

34 COMP.M.2928 Alcoa/Fairchild Fastener Business

35 COMP.M.2917 Wendel-KKR/Legrand

36 COMP.M.2940

TPG Advisors III/Goldman Sachs/Bain Capital Investors/
Burger King

37 COMP.M.2965

Staples Inc. / Guilbert SA

38 COMP.M.2867 UPM-Kymmene/Morgan Adhesives

39 COMP.M.2939

JCI/Bosch/VB Autobatterien JV

40 COMP.M.2968

Jabil/Philips Contract Manufacturing Services

41 COMP.M.2970 GE/ABB Structured Finance

41 COMP.M.2996

RTL/CNN/Time Warner/N-TV

42 COMP.M.2975 Aon Jauch & Hübner / Siemens / JV

10

43 COMP.M.2922

Pfizer/Pharmacia

44 COMP.M.3007

EON/TXU Europe Group

45 COMP.M.3025

Bain Capital/Dor Chemicals/Trespaphan JV

46 COMP.M.3024

Bain Capital/Rhodia

47 COMP.M.2980

Cargill/AOP

48 COMP.M.3042

Sony/Philips/InterTrust

49 COMP.M.3045 Masco/Hansgrohe

50 COMP.M.3027

State Street Corp./Deutsche Bank Global Securities

51 COMP.M.3012

Tebodin/Lockwood Greene

52 COMP.M.2993

Carlyle/QinetiQ

53 COMP.M.3041

Credit Suisse/Safilo

54 COMP.M.3011

Timken/Torrington

55 COMP.M.3030

Eaton/Delta

56 COMP.M 2874

Jabil/Alcatel

NON – MERGER CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

COMP.A.38300

PO/Pay-TV in France

COMP.F-1/138.153

Stichting Sanquin Boedvoorziening/
Hoffmann-LaRoche & Chiron Corporation

COMP.38427

PO Pay Television Film Output Agreements

COMP.F-1/38372

NBA/Chiron + Hoffmann-La Roche + Diagnostics
Limited

--

Rubber Chemicals

COMP.36816/D3

Source/IMS

COMP.37055/D3

NDC/IMS – Information

11

ANNEX 2

Notification by the US Authorities to the European Commission

01.01.2002 –31.12.2002

MERGER CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

FAG Kugelfischer AG / INA-Holdings

Jupiter Media Metrix, Inc. / NetRatings

Holm Industries / Industrie Ilpea S.p.A.

P&O Princess Cruises plc. / Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. / Carnival Corp.

Ralston Purina Company / Nestle S.A.

Danaher Corporation (« Danaher ») / Pennon Group PLC (« Pennon »)

The Seagram Company/Diageo Plc./Pernod ricard S.A.

Agora S.p.A./Ausimont S.p.A.

Deutsche Gelatine-Fabriken Stoess / Leiner Davis Gelatin Corp.

*

Bayer A.G./Sun Chemical Corporation/Dainippon Ink and Chemicals Inc.

12 US Steel Corp./Bethlehem Steel Corp./Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel

Corp./National Steel Corp.

13 Aggregate Industries Plc.UK/Wakefield Materials Co.US

14 Hyprotech Ltd./Aspen Technology Inc.

15 Haarman & Reimer/EQT Northern Europe Private Equity Fonds

16

17

18

19

20

ICAP Plc./BrokerTec Global L.L.C.

Tibco software Inc./Talarian Corp.

Pfizer/Pharmacia

Siemens/Dräger

ICAP Plc./BrokerTec Global L.L.C.

12

21

22

23

24

*

*

*

*

25 UPM-Kymmene Oyi/Bemis Corporation

26 Hitachi IBM

27

Timken/Torrington

NON-MERGER CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

*

*

Elf Atochem S.A. - (MCAA)

*

Osborne/Feldman – Stamp Dealing

Deutsche Bank AG/Reuters America Inc./Atriax LLC

Carbon Cathode Block

*

Hunter Douglas Companies

‘MCAA’ – J.Jourdan

*

Carbon Cathode Block

*

*

Polyester Staple-Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l.(KoSa)

Carbon Brushes – Morganite Inc./The Morgan Crucible Co.Plc.

*

13

ANNEX 315

Notification by the European Commission to the Canadian Authorities

01.01.2002 –31.12.2002

MERGER CASES

1

2

3

4

COMP.M 2652

Blackstone/CDPQ/DeTeks NRW

COMP.M. 2643

Blackstone/CDPQ/DeTeks BW

COMP.M.3049

Alcan/PlexPac

COMP.M.2901

Magna/Donnelly

NON-MERGER CASES

1

--

Rubber chemicals

ANNEX 4

Notification by the Canadian Authorities to the European Commission

01.01.2002 –31.12.2002

MERGER CASES

--

--

--

15

Due  to  confidentiality  requirements  or  to  protect  the  secrecy  of  ongoing  investigations,  this
list names only those investigations or cases which have been made public

14

                                                
NON-MERGER CASES

1

2

3

4

5

Graphite and Carbon Products

Methylglucamine

*

*

*

15