Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given during its 89th meeting on 12 January 2001 on a draft decision concerning the case COMP/M.2033 — Metso/Svedala (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2004-03-25
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Concentrations, Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, opinion, ore processing

C 76/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2004

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given during its 89th meeting on
12 January 2001 on a draft decision concerning the case COMP/M.2033 — Metso/Svedala

(2004/C 76/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee considers, in agreement with the Commission, that the notified operation
constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and that it
has a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee considers, in agreement with the Commission, that:

(a) New crushers and used crushers constitute separate markets.

(b) New crushers have to be segmented by technology (jaw crushers, cone crushers, primary gyratory

crushers) and by application (A & C and mining).

(c) Within mining cone crushers, very large high capacity cones constitute a distinct product market.

3. The Advisory Committee considers, in agreement with the Commission, that:

(a) The relevant geographic market for A & C crushers is national.

(b) The relevant geographic market for mining crushers is regional (EEA).

4. The Advisory Committee considers, in agreement with the Commission, that:

(a) The notified concentration will create a dominant position on the markets for A & C cone crushers
in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
and the United Kingdom.

(b) The notified concentration will create a dominant position on the markets for A & C jaw crushers

in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.

(c) The notified concentration will create a dominant position on the market for very high capacity

cone crushers in the EEA.

(d) The notified concentration will create a dominant position on the market for mining jaw crushers

in the EEA.

(e) The notified concentration will create a dominant position on the market for primary gyratory

crushers in the EEA.

5. The Advisory Committee considers, in agreement with the Commission, that the commitments offered

by the parties on 13 December 2000:

(a) Remove the competition concerns raised on the jaw crushers (A & C and mining).

(b) Remove the competition concerns raised on the cone crushers (A & C and mining).

(c) Are not sufficient to remove the competition concerns raised on the primary gyratory crushers

market.

6. The Advisory Committee considers, in agreement with the Commission, that the new undertakings
submitted by the parties on 22 December 2000 are not sufficient to remove the competition concerns
raised on the primary gyratory crushers market.

25.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/27

7. On the last undertakings submitted by the parties on 9 January 2001:

(a) Majority of the Advisory Committee considers that they have been submitted after the deadline of
Article 18(2) of Commission Regulation 447/98. A minority does not agree. Another minority
abstains.

(b) Majority of the Advisory Committee considers that the parties have not required exceptional

circumstances. A minority abstains.

(c) Majority of the Advisory Committee considers that, taking into account the specific features of this
case, the proposals of 9 January do not constitute new undertakings. A minority of the Advisory
Committee disagrees and considers
simple clarifications or
amendments of previous undertakings, but constitute new undertakings. Another minority
abstains.

these proposals are not

that

(d) As a consequence, majority of the Advisory Committee considers that the proposals of 9 January
must be taken into account. A minority of the Advisory Committee disagrees and considers that
they should not be taken into account.

8. Majority of the Advisory Committee considers that these last undertakings are sufficient to remove all
the competition problems. A minority of the Advisory Committee has not given an opinion as it does
not agree to take the last undertakings submitted by the parties into account.

9. Majority of the Advisory Committee considers that the Metso/Svedala operation can be declared
compatible with the common market and with the functioning of the EEA agreement. A minority
of the Advisory Committee disagrees as it does not agree to take into account the last undertakings
proposed by the parties.

10. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the matters raised by the
Member States during the discussion, especially the difficulty to make a difference between what is to
be considered as a new undertaking and what only constitutes a modification of a previous under-
taking.

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

European Union.