Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4094 — Ineos/BP Dormagen (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 .)
Date: 2007-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, audit, chemical alcohol, dominant position, exchange of information, hydrocarbon, merger, vertical agreement

C 54/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.3.2007

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4094 — Ineos/BP Dormagen

(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.)

(2007/C 54/05)

On 24 January 2006, Ineos notified the transaction to Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), by which the undertaking INEOS Group Limited (‘Ineos’)
would acquire control of
the BP Ethylene Oxide/Ethylene Glycol Business (‘BP Dormagen Business’)
controlled by British Petroleum Group (‘BP’).

Upon examination of the notification, the Commission concluded that the notified operation raised serious
concerns as to its compatibility with the common market, and decided to initiate proceedings pursuant to
Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 139/2004 on 28 February 2006. For the purpose of obtaining
further information from the notifying party, the Commission adopted an Article 11(3) decision addressed
to the notifying party dated 21 March 2006. On 4 April 2006, upon request, the notifying party was given
access to key documents in accordance with DG Competition's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger
control proceedings. On 19 May 2006 the Commission adopted, with the agreement of Ineos, an Article 10
(3) decision extending the duration of the procedure by 10 working days.

The Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Ineos on 30 May 2006, to which Ineos replied on 14
June 2006. Ineos did not request a formal oral hearing.

Access to file

Ineos was granted access to file upon issuance of the Statement of Objections. In a letter to the Hearing
Officer of 5 June 2006, Ineos complained that the Commission's Statement of Objections relied heavily
upon information from third parties which Ineos had not had the opportunity to review or upon which
they had not had the opportunity to submit their observations. I requested that the Commission services
respond to Ineos' concerns in the first place. Ineos was provided with anonymised summaries of third party
information on 9 June 2006. Some information was deemed to be sensitive business information, which
was not disclosed to Ineos. Ineos has not pursued this issue further with the Hearing Officer.

Letter of facts

On 29 June 2006, the Commission sent a letter of facts setting out additional data relating to the objections.
Ineos was requested to submit its comments, which it did on 4 July 2006.

After examination of the parties' reply to the Statement of Objections and in the light of new evidence
obtained from market participants after issuing the Statement of Objections, the Commission has concluded
that the proposed concentration does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market
or a substantial part of it, in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening of a dominant position.

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

Brussels, 26 July 2006

Karen WILLIAMS