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 (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2004-03-19
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), economic concentration, opinion, textile fibre

19.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/5

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 concen-
the Merger Regulation and has a Community

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

C 69/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2004

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.

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/M.2947 — Verbund/Energie Allianz

(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 69/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations:

The proposed concentration was notified on 20 December 2002.

On 4 February 2003 the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger
Regulation, and 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 which the
Commission is currently putting in place.

On 10 April 2003 the Commission sent out a statement of objections and the parties were given access to
the file. No issues have been raised with me in this respect, either by the Commission services or by the
parties. The parties replied to the statement of objections on 25 April and requested a formal hearing,
which was held on 29 April.

On 7 May 2003 the parties submitted proposals for remedies, which were then market tested. The
objectivity of the market test has not been questioned by the parties. They then presented modified
commitments. This enabled a draft clearance decision to be proposed, subject to conditions. In fact,
one objection was dropped by the Commission services after having received the reply to the statement
of objections and following the hearing.

Neither the parties nor the third parties have raised objections as to the conduct of the proceedings.

The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the
opportunity of making known their views. I therefore consider that the rights to be heard in this case
have been respected.

Done in Brussels, 3 June 2003.

Serge DURANDE