CELEX: 32020M9779
Language: en
Date: 2020-07-31 00:00:00
Title: Commission Decision of 31/07/2020 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.9779 - ALSTOM / BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
                                                                Brussels, 31.7.2020
                                                                C(2020) 5412 final
                                                                                 PUBLIC VERSION
                                                                 In the published version of this decision,
                                                                 some information has been omitted
                                                                 pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council
                                                                 Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concerning
                                                                 non-disclosure of business secrets and other
                                                                 confidential information. The omissions are
                                                                 shown thus […]. Where possible the
                                                                 information omitted has been replaced by
                                                                 ranges of figures or a general description.
                                                                To the notifying party
Subject:            Case M.9779 – Alstom/Bombardier Transportation
                    Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with
                    Article 6(2) of Council Regulation No 139/20041 and Article 57 of the
                    Agreement on the European Economic Area2
Dear Sir or Madam,
(1)       On 11 June 2020, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed
          concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Alstom S.A.
          (France, hereinafter ‘Alstom’ or the ‘Notifying Party’) will acquire sole control of
          Bombardier Transportation (Investment) UK Limited (UK, hereinafter
          ‘Bombardier’), the rail solutions division of Bombardier Inc., by way of acquisition
          of the entirety of the issued and outstanding shares of Bombardier (the
          ‘Transaction’). 3 Alstom and Bombardier are collectively referred to as the ‘Parties’.
1    OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the
     Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of
     'Community' by 'Union' and 'common market' by 'internal market'. The terminology of the TFEU will be
     used throughout this decision.
2    OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 (the ‘EEA Agreement’).
3    Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 205, 19.6.2020, p. 21.
Commission européenne, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Bruxelles, BELGIQUE
Europese Commissie, DG COMP MERGER REGISTRY, 1049 Brussel, BELGIË
Tel: +32 229-91111. Fax: +32 229-64301. E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.  THE PARTIES
(2) Alstom is headquartered in France and listed on Euronext Paris Stock Exchange. It is
    active globally in the rail transport industry, offering a wide range of transport
    solutions, including activities in rolling stock and signalling.
(3) Alstom’s shares are currently held by the Bouygues group (c. 15% and representing
    c. 25% of Alstom’s voting rights), institutional investors (77%), individual
    shareholders (7%) and by Alstom employees (1%). No shareholder holds an interest
    in its issued share capital that is sufficient to confer control.
(4) Bombardier, the global rail solutions division of Bombardier Inc., is headquartered
    in Germany and offers a wide range of rail solutions, ranging from trains to sub-
    systems and signalling. Bombardier has production, engineering and service centers
    around the globe.
(5) Bombardier’s shares are held by Bombardier Inc. (c. 64%) and by Caisse de dépôt et
    placement du Québec (‘CDPQ’) (c. 36%).
2.  THE OPERATION
(6) On February 17, 2020, Alstom, Bombardier Inc. and CDPQ signed a memorandum
    of understanding, as further amended and restated on March 30, 2020, in accordance
    to which, after the end of the information and consultation process of Alstom’s
    European Works Forum, which is expected to be completed by the end of the third
    quarter 2020, the Parties and CDPQ will formally sign a sales and purchase
    agreement. In addition, Alstom will formally sign investment agreements with both
    CDPQ and Bombardier Inc.
(7) Under the agreements to be signed pursuant to the memorandum of understanding,
    (i) Alstom will acquire the entirety of the issued and outstanding shares of
    Bombardier and (ii) CDPQ and Bombardier Inc. will reinvest in Alstom the
    transaction proceeds they will receive from the sale of their stake in Bombardier, in
    return for non-controlling minority interests in Alstom. Following the Transaction,
    Alstom’s share capital will be held by Bouygues (c. […]%), Bombardier Inc. (c.
    […]%), CDPQ (c. […]%) and other shareholders ([…]%). No shareholder will hold
    an interest in Alstom’s issued share capital that would be sufficient to confer control
    over Alstom.
(8) The stated economic rationale for the Transaction is to create a more competitive and
    innovative global player in the rapidly transforming global mobility sector. The
    Notifying Party further explains that the Transaction will reinforce Bombardier’s
    competitive and financial position which has recently been decreasing due to
    financial and project execution difficulties.
3.  CONCENTRATION
(9) Following the Transaction, Alstom will hold the entirety of the issued and
    outstanding shares of, and sole control over, Bombardier.
                                                  2
 ---pagebreak--- (10)     The Transaction therefore constitutes a concentration pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of
         the Merger Regulation.
4.       UNION DIMENSION
(11)     The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of
         more than EUR 5 000 million4 (Alstom: EUR 8 201 million; Bombardier: EUR
         7 396 million). Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million
         (Alstom: EUR […]; Bombardier: EUR […]), but each does not achieve more than
         two-thirds of its aggregate EU-wide turnover within one and the same Member
         State. The notified operation therefore has a Union dimension.
5.       MARKET DEFINITION – ROLLING STOCK
5.1.     Introduction
(12)     The Parties’ activities in the EEA overlap in very high-speed, mainline and urban
         rolling stock (metros and trams/LRVs), as well as maintenance. The Parties’
         activities create vertical links in rolling stock components and spare parts.
5.2.     Relevant markets
5.2.1. Product market definition
           5.2.1.1. Very high-speed rolling stock
         (A)        The Notifying Party’s view
         (A.i)      Distinction between high-speed and very high-speed trains
(13)     The Parties consider that there is a single overall product market for high-speed
         trains operating at speeds of 250 km/h and above and that trains capable of speeds at
         or above 300 km/h (‘very’ high-speed rolling stock) do not constitute a separate
         market.
(14)     First, the Notifying Party states that the same regulations apply to all trains capable
         of speeds at or above 250 km/h. In that regard, it indicates that EU legislation and
         policy documents only provide definition and specific technical requirements for
         trains capable of speeds at or above 250 km/h, without specific references to trains
         capable of speeds at or above 300 km/h.5
(15)     According to the Notifying Party, once requirements for speeds of 250 km/h are met,
         most technical requirements do not differ between high-speed and very high-speed
4   Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Merger Regulation and the Commission
    Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (OJ C95, 16.4.2008, p. 1).
5   For instance, the 2008 Interoperability Directive provides that high-speed vehicles include those
    circulating ‘at speeds of at least 250 km/h on lines specially built for high speeds, while enabling
    operation at speeds exceeding 300 km/h in appropriate circumstances.” In addition, no reference is made
    to the 300 km/h speed threshold in the 2016 Interoperability Directive which describes high-speed
    infrastructures as that ‘equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h.’
                                                           3
 ---pagebreak---         trains.6 Any additional technical requirements (and any related costs) for reaching
        speeds above 300 km/h are incremental and are obtained through an extension of the
        same technology.7
(16)    Second, the Notifying Party states that high-speed rolling stock suppliers can
        develop new platforms or adapt existing platforms to allow for higher speeds. High-
        speed rolling stock suppliers can thus rely on their technical know-how and capacity
        to develop trains operating at higher speeds.8
(17)    In that regard, the Notifying Party submits that the speed increase does not require
        significant technical modifications. Operating speed only impacts a few components
        and sub-components, requiring replacement or adaptation in line with the new
        speed,9 and which represent a negligible part of the total platform costs. In addition,
        the overall trainset architecture and the interior do not need to be changed, saving
        rolling stock suppliers significant cost and time. Furthermore, the Notifying Party
        considers that R&D investment to convert a high-speed platform into a very high-
        speed one is limited and a supplier having developed a 250 km/h solution may
        participate in a very high-speed tender with very little upfront investment.10
(18)    Third, the Notifying Party considers that tender specifications and infrastructure
        costs do not provide a basis for distinguishing between high-speed and very high-
        speed trains.11
(19)    In particular, the Notifying Party claims that trains with maximum speeds below 300
        km/h can compete in tenders for trains capable of speeds of 300 km/h or above.12
        Conversely, trains capable of running at speeds above 300 km/h may compete in
        tenders for trains operating between 250-300 km/h.13 In that regard, the Notifying
        Party indicates that multiple suppliers use the same platform in both high-speed and
        very high-speed tenders.14
6  The Notifying Party states that there is only one additional technical specifications for interoperability
   requirement applicable when the platform speed exceeds 280 km/h (the use of a magnetic braking system
   is required). Other Technical Standards of Interoperability requirements already applying to 250 km/h
   platforms may also become slightly more stringent as the operating speed increases. However, according
   to the Notifying Party, these requirements are secondary compared to the technical standards associated
   with the 250 km/h speed threshold (Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 18).
7  For instance, the Technical Standards of Interoperability set out different maximum breaking distances at
   different speeds from 150 km/h upwards, and which increase with the speed. This would not be a relevant
   distinguishing factor, in particular because various speeds do not necessarily require different braking
   solutions (e.g., increasing the number of braking discs required for a very high-speed train compared to a
   high-speed train may be sufficient) (Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 19).
8  Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 22.
9  According to the Notifying Party, these components include, for instance, anti-yaw dampers, gearboxes
   ratio, on-board signalling systems, and power-bogies.
10 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 23.
11 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 25.
12 For instance, while [Information on Alstom’s business strategy].
13 For example, Alstom won the 2016 tender by Amtrak, for the Northeastern corridor with its Liberty
   platform, designed for maximum speeds of up to 300 km/h. The Liberty trainsets ordered by Amtrak are
   manufactured for maximum speeds of 300 km/h, but remain upgradable to 350 km/h, in view of the
   expected upgrade of sections the network between Washington, D.C. and Boston.
14 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 24.
                                                         4
 ---pagebreak--- (20)   The Notifying Party further states that customers for high-speed trains do not use
       300 km/h as a relevant threshold. In that regard, it indicates that maximum speed is
       often not the main factor of choice for high-speed operators and that customers
       sometimes express their requirement in journey time rather than in terms of
       maximum speed. In addition, certain customers are interested in flexible rolling
       stock solutions with platforms capable of high-speed and very high-speed.15
(21)   In terms of infrastructure, the Notifying Party considers that the Commission’s
       findings in its decision in case M.8677 - Siemens/Alstom (hereinafter
       ‘Siemens/Alstom’) regarding the specific characteristics of tracks allowing for very
       high-speed travel16 and having higher construction costs17 are insufficient to warrant
       a distinction between high-speed and very high-speed trains. In that regard, it states
       that there is no general difference in construction costs between high-speed and very
       high-speed dedicated tracks, because each line has specific geographic and other
       considerations that may have an important impact on construction costs. Moreover,
       it states that there is a certain level of substitutability between tracks dedicated to
       high and very high-speeds, since several trains that are not capable of speeds of
       300 km/h or above are operating on very high-speed tracks across the EEA.18
(22)   Based on the above, according to the Notifying Party, the question of a speed
       threshold within the high-speed market is not a decisive issue from both supplier and
       customer perspectives.19
(23)   In any event, the Notifying Party considers that the question of a potential
       segmentation of the market between high-speed and very high-speed trains can be
       left open as the competitive conditions do not change materially regardless of the
       market definition.
       (A.ii)     Distinctions in relation to the number of floors and to the traction system or
                  architecture
(24)   The Notifying Party states that segmentations of high-speed rolling stock based on
       the number of floors (single- or double-decker) and the traction system (distributed
       traction or concentrated traction) or architecture (articulated or non-articulated) are
       not warranted.
(25)   With respect to traction system and architecture, the Notifying Party indicates not
       having determined any particular traction system or architecture type requirement in
       the high-speed and very high-speed rolling stock tenders in the past 10 years at
       global level. In addition, it states that while many suppliers may only offer one type
       of traction and/or architecture, this does not prevent them from competing in tenders
       against suppliers whose offerings are based on different traction systems or
       architecture.20
15 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 30.
16 Curve radius, cant deficiency/tilt, catenary construction, etc.
17 9% more than a conventional railway.
18 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 28.
19 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 31.
20 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 34.
                                                           5
 ---pagebreak--- (26)    With respect to number of floors, the Notifying Party indicates that most tenders do
        not include any specifications related to single- or double-deck high-speed trains.
        Therefore, the Notifying Party considers that single-deck and double-deck platforms
        are typically perceived as substitutable from a customer standpoint and compete
        closely in most tenders.21 Finally, it submits that the exact market definition can be
        left open.
        (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(27)    In Siemens/Alstom22, the Commission considered that, based on both supply and
        demand-side considerations, tender specifications and technical requirements show
        that high-speed rolling stock (trains capable of speed between 250 km/h and 299
        km/h) is not substitutable for very high-speed rolling stock (trains capable of speed
        equal to and above 300 km/h). It ultimately left the question open as the transaction
        raised competition issues under both conceivable definitions.
(28)    From a customer perspective, the Commission noted the existence of a specific
        demand for very high-speed rolling stock. In that regard, customers running train
        capable of speed at or above 300 km/h operate trains on dedicated tracks for very
        high-speed travels and require, in their tender specifications, trains capable of very
        high-speeds.
(29)    From a supply-side perspective, the Commission notes that most suppliers have
        different platforms for high-speed and very high-speeds and that converting high-
        speed platforms into very high-speed platforms23 takes several years and entails
        significant investment in R&D, engineering and development.
        (C)       Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
        (C.i)     Distinction between high-speed and very high-speed trains
(30)    The Commission considers that the findings in relation to a possible segmentation of
        the high-speed rolling stock market distinguishing very high-speed trains as
        explained in Siemens/Alstom remain applicable for the purpose of the present
        decision.
(31)    The results of the market investigation conducted in the present case thus confirmed
        that high-speed trains (capable of a speed equal to or higher than 250 km/h) are not
        substitutable with very high-speed trains (capable of a speed equal to or higher than
        300 km/h). The majority24 of respondents consider that very high-speed rolling stock
        belong to a separate market, mainly because of (i) their operational speed capacity
        and performance, which allow for travel at 300 km/h and above, (ii) dedicated lines
21 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 36.
22 Commission decision of 8 February 2018 in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, paras. 88 and 89.
23 In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission assessed the technical and financial conditions surrounding the
   [Information on Alstom’s bidding strategy] (recitals 83 to 87).
24 Throughout this decision, when the Commission refers to the (number of) respondents in relation to a
   given question of the market investigation this excludes all respondents that have not provided an answer
   to that question or replied ‘I do not know’, unless stated otherwise. For example, ‘a majority of
   respondents’ means a majority of respondents having replied to a given question and not having ticked ‘I
   do not know’.
                                                         6
 ---pagebreak---        used to operate them, and (iii) specific technical requirements, price and investment
       needed to develop such rolling stock.25
(32)   From the demand-side, major high-speed and very high-speed lines operators such as
       Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane (‘FSI’, Italy) and SNCF (France) confirmed that very
       high-speed rolling stock constitute a separate relevant market. 26 SNCF explained in
       that regard that the condition of exploitation of high-speed and very high-speed
       rolling stock differ, and that trains running at speed below 300 km/h cannot be
       operated on very high-speed dedicated track without disturbing the service. SNCF
       further explained that the European Technical Standards of Interoperability (‘TSI’)
       specifications for very high-speed rolling stock do differ and are more demanding
       than high-speed rolling stock (requiring, for example, that mechanical parts be of
       greater strength for a very high-speed train than for a high-speed trains).
(33)   On the other hand, some customers, including Deutsche Bahn (Germany), Nuovo
       Trasporto Viaggiatori (‘NTV’, Italy) and High Speed Two (‘HS2’, United
       Kingdom), consider that a distinction between high-speed and very high-speed
       rolling stock may not be warranted.27 They indicated that they operate both kinds of
       fleets and consider that technical requirements for running high-speed and very high-
       speed do not significantly differ.
(34)   However, these customers also recognised that they have a specific demand for very
       high-speed rolling stock and that they would not procure a high-speed train to be
       operated on very high-speed tracks.28 This is because the procurement of a very
       high-speed train aims at maximising the performance allowed by the railway
       infrastructure, which would not be possible with a high-speed train. For instance,
       HS2 indicated that investments in very high-speed dedicated tracks aim to ‘HS2 Ltd
       is procuring very high-speed rolling stock capable of 360km/h operation on
       infrastructure designed for 360km/h operation. This is to maximise the capacity
       benefits of the [very] high-speed infrastructure and achieve HS2 Ltd’s Sponsor
       Requirements (set by the UK Department for Transport).’29 This is consistent with
       the Commission’s findings in Siemens/Alstom, where investments in very high-speed
       dedicated tracks were found to rely on major policy decisions and to involve
       substantial public spending in order to specifically achieve speeds that only very
       high-speed trains can achieve.30
(35)   From the supply-side, a large majority of rolling stock suppliers agree that multiple
       factors justify distinguishing high-speed and very high-speed rolling stock markets.31
(36)   First, high-speed and very high-speed trains differ in performance. As stated in
       Siemens/Alstom, very high-speed trains are designed to travel long distances at
       speeds over 300 km/h (other high-speed trains are designed to travel at speeds
       between 250 km/h and cannot reach 300 km/h). In order to achieve speeds above 300
       km/h, suppliers explained that very high-speed trains need specific technological
25 Commission decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2018), recital 61.
26 Questionnaire 2 addressed to customers in very high-speed rolling stock (‘Q2”), replies to question 5.
27 Q2, replies to question 5.
28 Q2, replies to question 6.1.
29 Q2, reply to question 6.1.
30 Commission decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2018), recitals 66-67.
31 Questionnaire 1 addressed to competitors in very high-speed rolling stock (‘Q1”), replies to question 4.
                                                        7
 ---pagebreak---        development, such as sophisticated aerodynamics, and strict safety requirement, such
       crash tests. In addition, respondents explained that the design and manufacture of a
       very high-speed train require a specific combination of special pre-calculations and
       laboratory tests prior to performing track tests.32
(37)   Second, respondents to the market investigation indicated that customers generally
       specify the speed required (i.e., at least 300 km/h in a very high-speed tender). In
       certain cases, customers request bidders to have a certified very high-speed platform
       in order to be capable to participate in the tender.33
(38)   Third, as a results of the above, the technical and commercial development of a very
       high-speed platform with certified technology require more than 10 years and very
       significant investments, significantly higher than those needed to develop a high-
       speed platform.
(39)   It follows from the above that very high-speed rolling stock appear to constitute a
       distinct relevant market. However, it is not necessary to conclude on the precise
       delineation of the relevant product market for the assessment of the effects of the
       Transaction for the purpose of the present decision. For the reasons set out at
       paragraphs (281), the Commission will focus its competitive assessment on the
       market for very high-speed (including all trains capable of a speed equal to or higher
       than 300 km/h).
       (C.ii)      Distinction in relation to traction system or architecture and the number of
                   floors
(40)   With respect to traction system or architecture, customers generally do not
       distinguish between traction system or architecture type, allowing suppliers to
       compete in tenders with one or the other traction system. For example [Information
       on Alstom’s bidding strategy] while Siemens’ (ultimately winning) bid was based on
       a non-articulated solution (Velaro e320).
(41)   With respect to the number of floor, the Commission notes that Alstom is currently
       the only supplier offering double-decker platforms. Given that most tenders do not
       distinguish between the number of floors in their specification, [Information on
       Alstom’s bidding strategy].
(42)   As a result, the Commission considers that no segmentation on the basis of (i) the
       type of traction of train architecture and (ii) the number of floors is warranted for the
       purpose of defining the relevant market in the present case.
         5.2.1.2. Mainline rolling stock
(43)   Mainline rolling stock comprise trainsets used for a variety of distances, including
       around and between cities, across country borders, and running on large networks of
       conventional tracks typically shared between several railway operators (i.e., the
       mainline rail network). The defining feature of mainline trains is their self-propelled
       nature, meaning that power is distributed through several motors along the train. As
       a result, mainline trains can accommodate passengers in all cars and do not have
32 Q1, replies to question 4.1.
33 Q1, reply to question 4.1.
                                                     8
 ---pagebreak---        dedicated vehicles with no passenger access (such as locomotives) at the front and
       end of the train that provide the pull. The traction can be powered through different
       sources, including, among others, by drawing power from overhead catenaries to
       power electrical multiple units (‘EMUs’) or by on-board diesel-engines (diesel
       multiple units (‘DMUs’)).34
(44)   Mainline trains are distinct from high-speed trains (running at speeds at or above 250
       km/h) and urban trains running on urban networks and covering mass transit within
       cities.
       (A)        The Notifying Party’s view
(45)   The Notifying Party indicates that, as established by the Commission in
       Siemens/Alstom,35 mainline trains differ from high-speed trains on the basis of
       regulatory and technical differences related to maximum speed.36 It explains that
       trains travelling at or above 250 km/h must respect additional technical
       specifications under the TSI. Nevertheless, in the Notifying Party’s view, it cannot
       be excluded that future intercity tenders will not be constrained by competition from
       250 km/h high-speed trains. The Notifying Party argues that although high-speed
       and intercity trains are not part of the same market, high-speed trains can be offered
       for intercity tenders as long as they meet the customer’s tender requirements
       (including those related to price) and that high-speed trains can be authorised, and
       therefore operated, at speeds below 250 km/h.37
(46)   The Notifying Party submits that mainline trains differ from metros due to the
       network on which they operate. While metros operate on closed urban mass transit
       networks, mainline trains operate on mainline networks covering transport between
       city centers and suburban areas, different cities, regions, and countries. Moreover,
       mainline trains are characterized by higher speeds, less frequent stops, lower
       passenger capacity, and higher comfort level compared to metros.38
(47)   The Notifying Party considers that there is no clear segmentation between regional
       and intercity trains based on supply-side characteristics but that there may be certain
       differences from a demand-side perspective.39
(48)   The Notifying Party puts forward a number of arguments against distinguishing
       regional from intercity trains, including the absence of any commonly accepted
       industry definition and the substitutability of product lines between regional and
       intercity trains from a supply-side perspective. In particular, the Notifying Party
       asserts that all major players are already active in both markets. The remaining
34 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 11.
35 Commission decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2018), recitals 57-59.
36 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 15.
37 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 15. The Notifying Party refers to the following examples: [Information
   on Alstom’s bidding data], the Parties understand that [Information on the Parties’ bidding data]. Alstom
   has also [Information on Alstom’s bidding strategy].
38 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 15.
39 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 19.
                                                         9
 ---pagebreak---        regional-only suppliers can easily expand into the intercity market in view of the
       limited technical and regulatory differences between regional and intercity trains.40
(49)   Furthermore, the Notifying Party argues that suppliers can upgrade regional trains
       for operation at intercity speeds with limited costs.41 The Notifying Party explains
       that intercity speeds are often already incorporated into the pre-design of regional
       trains.42
(50)   In relation to the distinction between EMUs and DMUs, the Notifying Party
       recognises that they may constitute separate product markets.43 The Notifying Party
       also explains that new technologies are emerging, including bimode trains which
       operate on routes consisting of both electrified and non-electrified lines within a
       single journey without stops or changes by switching between electrical traction and
       diesel engine power.44 Other technologies are hydrogen fuel-cell trains that provide
       an emission-free alternative to DMUs on non-electrified lines, and BEMUs on the
       other hand, provide emission-free alternatives to bimode trains which operate on
       both electrified and non-electrified lines to avoid interchanges on a route.45
(51)    In any event, the Notifying Party explains that the Parties’ activities only overlap in
       EMUs as Bombardier has not supplied any DMU trains in the past 10 years and does
       not have a DMU train in its portfolio.46
(52)   In the Notifying Party’s view, single-decker and double-decker trains are not likely
       to constitute separate markets.
(53)   From the demand-side perspective, customers’ requests for tenders typically do not
       contain specific architecture requirements as customers tender projects based on
       capacity requirements and are willing to consider both single- and double-decker
       architectures. The Notifying Party explains that suppliers decide on the architecture
       of their offer taking into account customers’ capacity and length requirements and
       infrastructural constraints (e.g., platform length), and their existing portfolio.
       According to the Notifying Party, on a limited number of occasions, suppliers
       offered different architectures in the same project.47
(54)   From the supply-side perspective, the Notifying Party submits that all major
       suppliers have single- and double-decker platforms in their portfolio.48 Furthermore,
       the Notifying Party considers that the recent trend for mixed train configuration
40 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraphs 21-23. According to the Notifying Party, intercity and regional trains
   are generally subject to the same technical and regulatory standards, evidenced by mainline platforms,
   capable of addressing both speeds (such as Stadler’s FLIRT and CAF’s Civity solutions).
41 The Notifying Party estimates that [Information on Bombardier’s business strategy]. See Form CO,
   Chapter B.2, paragraph 23.
42 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 23.
43 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 27.
44 Form CO, Chapter B.2, footnote 61.
45 Form CO, Chapter B.2, footnote 62.
46 Form, CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 28.
47 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 31. The Notifying Party refers to the following examples of suppliers
   offering different architecture in the context of the same project: [Information on Bombardier’s and its
   competitors’ bidding strategy and bidding data].
48 The Notifying Party lists the following competitors that offer both single- and double-decker platforms:
   Stadler, Siemens, CAF, Hitachi, and Skoda.
                                                         10
 ---pagebreak---        platforms (i.e., platforms that combine both single- and double-decker cars) further
       blurs the distinction between single- and double-decker trains49.
(55)   The Notifying Party submits that the competitive assessment should be carried out
       by combining speed (intercity/regional) and propulsion (EMU/DMU) in order to
       reflect commercial reality in tenders. In the Notifying Party’s view, customers
       always specify both the maximum operating speed and power supply requirements
       in their tender specifications50.
(56)   The Notifying Party indicates, nonetheless, that the market definition can be left
       open as the Transaction does not give rise to any competition concerns regardless of
       the precise delineation of the relevant market.
       (B)         The Commission’s decisional practice
(57)   In previous decisions, the Commission distinguished between self-propelled trains
       and locomotive-hauled trains (so-called push-pull trains) and considered separate
       product markets for self-propelled trains, locomotives, and passenger coaches.
(58)   The Commission also distinguished self-propelled mainline trains from high-speed
       trains designed to travel long distances at speeds of more than 250 km/h on
       conventional tracks.51
(59)   The Commission considered additional segmentations within mainline rolling stock.
       In case Bombardier/AdTranz, the Commission drew a distinction between intercity
       and regional trains in light of differentiating features and separate requirements from
       the demand-side.52 Within the intercity and regional rolling stock markets, the
       Commission examined but left open further sub-segmentations according to the type
       of traction (EMUs / DMUs) and number of decks (single / double-deckers).53
       (C)         Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
       (C.i)       On segmentations of the relevant market
(60)   First, with regard to the cut-off point between mainline and high-speed trains, the
       results of the market investigation confirm the Notifying Party's view that the
       definition of intercity rolling stock should exclude trains capable of travelling at a
       maximum speed of exactly 250 km/h. Therefore, for the purpose of the present
       decision, only trains capable of a maximum speed below 250 km/h will fall in the
       mainline rolling stock category.54
49 According to the Notifying Party, examples of mixed train configuration platforms include the Siemens’
   Desiro HC, Bombardier’s Omneo, and […]. See Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 32.
50 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 36.
51 The Notifying Party considers that trains travelling at exactly 250 km/h should be categorised as high-
   speed trains and excluded from the market for mainline trains.
52 Commission Decision in Case M.2139 – Bombardier/ADtranz (2001), recital 11.
53 Commission Decision in Case M.580 – ABB/Daimler-Benz (1995); Commission Decision in Case M.2139
   – Bombardier/ADtranz (2001), recitals 7-12.
54 Q1, replies to question 3; Q2, replies to question 4.
                                                         11
 ---pagebreak--- (61)   Second, with regard to the distinction between self-propelled and locomotive-hauled
       trains, a large majority of respondents confirms that distinction.55 This is due to the
       fact that locomotive-hauled trains consist of essentially two products, wagons and a
       locomotive, whereas self-propelled trains consist of a single trainset involving
       inherently different and more sophisticated technology. Accordingly, from the
       demand-side, self-propelled and locomotive-hauled trains are used for different
       services and involve different exploitation and maintenance facilities and
       management.56
       (C.ii)      On market segmentations in mainline rolling stock
       (C.ii.a) Regional and intercity trains
(62)   As regards the possible segmentation of the market for mainline rolling stock into
       regional and intercity trains, a majority of respondents to the market investigation
       (both customers and competitors) considered that regional and intercity trains are not
       substitutable.57 Respondents note that intercity and regional trains have distinct
       features and answering to different customer needs in terms of speed, number of
       stops, distance operated, passenger capacity, passenger comfort and accessibility.58
(63)   When procuring mainline trains, customers typically distinguish in tender
       specifications between regional and intercity trains in view of requested speed and
       other characteristics.59 Despite a certain degree of overlap between products in each
       market in terms of maximum speeds (certain regional trains being capable/operating
       above 160 km/h), customers consider that the distinction remains valid due to their
       different features (interior layout and amenities) and technical characteristics,
       predominantly speed but also capacity, length, number of doors, and other features.60
       Arriva Tog AS explains that ‘although there is some cross-over, in general the
       characteristics of an intercity train (high speed, few passenger doors, large seat
       spacing, kitchen provision etc.) are different to those of a regional train (lower
       speed, more doors to facilitate rapid boarding, closer seat spacing)’.61 This view is
       also supported by competitors.62
(64)   With regard to speed, even in the absence of an industry definition or a technical
       segmentation at the 160 km/h speed mark, the results of the market investigation
       largely confirm that a distinction between trains capable of operating at speeds above
       and below 160 km/h is valid.63
(65)   Nevertheless, customers also confirm that trains initially designed for
       regional/commuter traffic but with intercity configurations built into their pre-design
       may be competitive in intercity tenders if the other requirements listed at paragraph
55 Q3 – Questionnaire to competitors – Mainline Rolling Stock (“Q3”), replies to question 3.1; Q4 –
   Questionnaire to customers – Mainline Rolling Stock (“Q4”), replies to question 4.1 and 4.1.1.
56 Q4, replies to questions 4.1 and 4.1.1
57 Q3, replies to question 3.4.; Q4, replies to question 4.3.
58 Q3, replies to question 3.3.1.1; Q4, replies to question 4.3.1.
59 Q4, replies to questions 5, 5.1, 6, and 6.1.
60 Q3, replies to questions 3.3, 3.3.1, 5.1; Q4, replies to questions 4.3, 4.3.1 and 4.3.1.1.
61 Q4, Arriva Tog’s reply to question 4.3.1.
62 Q3, replies to question 3.3.1.
63
   Q3, replies to question 4.1. Q4, replies to questions 6, 6.1, 8.
                                                            12
 ---pagebreak---         63 are fulfilled.64 Several competitors also share this view.65 Hitachi Rail (“Hitachi”)
        thus considers that ‘trains designed for regional/commuter service may be
        competitively proposed in a tender for intercity/long-distance trains (and vice-versa)
        if they have been conceived, at a pre-design level, for operation on both kinds of
        routes’.66
(66)    From the supply-side perspective, the results of the market investigation indicate that
        several competitors already provide platforms capable of operating as both regional
        and intercity trains (e.g., Stadler, Hitachi, CRRC).67 Respondents to the market
        investigation generally considered that, unless intercity configurations are pre-
        designed, upgrading existing platforms intended for regional/commuter traffic to
        travel above 160 km/h is a lengthy and costly process which can take around 3-4
        years. In addition, such an upgrade would require re-homologation68 and obtaining
        regulatory approvals.69 Nevertheless, the results of the market investigation
        confirmed that some of the Parties’ competitors have already carried out such an
        upgrade (e.g., Stadler and Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, S.A
        (“CAF”).70
(67)    In contrast, adapting a regional train with built-in intercity configurations to travel at
        intercity speeds can be carried out with more limited cost and within a shorter
        timeframe as compared to the upgrade of a regional train without such
        configurations.71 Siemens explains that ‘the inclusion of higher speeds in a train pre-
        design phase means that a speed upgrade can be achieved more quickly and at lower
        costs (e.g. adapting traction power and gearbox) compared to a pre-design that does
        not foresee a speed upgrade’.72 Furthermore, several suppliers offer regional trains
        with intercity configurations in pre-design (e.g., Siemens, CAF, Hitachi and Stadler).
        Hitachi explains that ‘the existing train platforms intended for regional/commuter
        traffic with intercity configurations built in their pre-design can be easily adapted in
        terms of time and cost to be operated in intercity traffic if a clause-by-clause
        analysis of the subsystems requirements and the eventual adaptive redesign and
        homologation-related activities are carried out’.73
(68)    Competitors that responded to the market investigation indicated that any upgrade of
        an existing platform designed for regional traffic (irrespective of additional
        configurations included in their pre-design) maybe limited to a maximum speed of
        200 km/h, beyond which more substantial modifications would be required.74
64 Q4, replies to questions 5.1 and 6.
65 Q3, replies to questions 6 and 6.1.
66 Hitachi’s response to Q3, question 5.1.
67 Q3, replies to question 7. Based on the Notifying Party’s submission, Bombardier’s Omneo platform is
   also capable of operating at regional and intercity speed.
68 “Homologation” of a platform is the term commonly used in the railway. In this decision, the Commission
   indifferently uses the terms “homologation” and “authorisation”.
69 Q3, replies to questions 8.1.1-8.1.5.
70 Q3, replies to question 8, 8.1.6.
71 Q3, replies to question 9.1.1.
72 Siemens’ response to Q3, question 9.1.1.
73 Hitachi’s response to Q3, question 9.1.1.
74 Q3, replies to questions 8.1.1 and 9.1.1.
                                                          13
 ---pagebreak--- (69)   Furthermore, several competitors indicated that intercity trains can be operated at
       lower speed and used for regional/commuter traffic.75
(70)   Therefore, the Commission is of the view that regional rolling stock that include
       intercity configurations in pre-design may constitute a competitive constrain when
       customers demand intercity trains and vice-versa. For the purpose of this decision,
       the Commission considers that the exact product market definition (i.e., whether
       overall market for mainline rolling stock or segmented into regional and intercity
       trains) can be left open. The Commission carries out the competitive assessment in
       section 6.3 of this decision in all plausible markets.
       (C.ii.b) EMUs and DMUs
(71)   The Commission notes that a large majority of respondents agree that EMUs should
       be distinguished from DMUs.76 EMUs have distinctive technical features and answer
       to different customer needs, DMUs being more expensive and only operated where
       tracks are not electrified. Environmental impact and fuel economy are cited as
       differentiating aspects.
(72)   Several respondents also indicate that other technologies are emerging such as bi-
       mode and hybrid (electric-diesel) as well as alternative self-propelled power sources
       (battery, fuel-cells, other) multiple units.77 The Commission considers that the new
       technologies blur the distinction between EMUs and DMUs. For example, bimode
       trains operate on routes including both electrified and non-electrified lines without
       switching between electrical traction and diesel engine power and they thus compete
       with both EMUs and DMUs. Therefore, a distinction between EMUs used for
       electrified lines and DMUs required when the lines are not electrified is not
       warranted.
(73)   However, for the purpose of this decision, the Commission considers that the exact
       market definition of self-propelled mainline trains can be left open (i.e., whether
       separate markets for EMUs and DMUs or a single market comprising all types of
       traction) because the conclusion of the competitive assessment remains the same
       under any plausible product market definition.
       (C.ii.c) Single-decker and double-decker
(74)   With regard to the possible distinction by number of decks, most respondents
       indicated that single- and double-decker rolling stock display technical, price and
       capacity differences.78 However, from the demand-side perspective, a majority of
       customers use single- and double-decker interchangeably on the same routes
       depending on capacity requirements.79 The main factors driving demand for double-
       decker trains, according to the results of the market investigation, include capacity
75 Skoda’s response to Q3, question 8.1.1.
76 Q3, replies to question 3.2; Q4, replies to question 4.2.
77 Q3, replies to question 3.2.1; Q4, replies to question 4.2.1.
78 Q3, replies to question 3.4; Q4, replies to question 4.4.
79 Q3, replies to question Q4, replies to questions 9 and 9.1.
                                                           14
 ---pagebreak---        requirements, configurations of the rail infrastructure, vehicle length requirements,
       level access and price.80
(75)   Furthermore, there are mixed views as to whether customers specifically request
       double-deckers in tenders. Some customers indicated that they specifically requested
       double-decker trains in tenders, while others responded that they neither requested
       nor excluded procuring double-decker trains.81 Arriva Tog confirms that in some
       instances suppliers may determine the train architecture based on customers’
       capacity requirements: ‘Generally, when specifying rolling stock, we would look to
       specify a passenger capacity and then the physical characteristics of the
       infrastructure that the rolling stock needs to be compatible with. It would then be up
       to the rolling stock manufacturers to propose the type of unit that meets this
       specification – whether it be single or double deck. There may be occasions when a
       contracting authority requests specific double or single deck, in which case we
       would include that requirement in our specification’.82 SNCF also considers that it
       does not explicitly specify if single- or double-deckers will be procured and that
       ‘manufacturers adapt their offers according to the need expressed in terms of
       passenger carrying capacity’.83
(76)   From the supply-side perspective, some competitors explain that substitution
       between single- and double-decker trains is constrained by technical, structural
       differences and architectures.84 Stadler expressed the view that ‘from the perspective
       of a supplier, switching production from single-deck to double-deck rolling stock
       entails significant time and investment but it is technically and commercially
       feasible’.85
(77)   Respondents considered that the investment required to start manufacturing double-
       decker platforms would be consistent with the manufacturing of any new
       train/platform.86 Respondents explained that engineering know-how specific to
       double-decker trains may be required but also provided the example of suppliers
       who developed low-cost double-decker trains or used internal engineering capacity
       and facilities already employed in the manufacturing of single-deckers to develop
       double-deckers.87
(78)   The Commission also observes that a large number of the Parties’ competitors
       already supply both single- and double-decker trains (including Stadler, Siemens,
       CAF, Hitachi and Skoda).88 Furthermore, as indicated by the Notifying Party, the
       existence of trains combining both single-decker and double-decker cars (such as
       Bombardier’s Omneo, Siemens’ Desiro and […]) may render a distinction between
       single- and double-decker trains less relevant.
80 Q4, replies to question 4.4.1, 9.1.1 and 10.
81 Q4, replies to question 11.
82 Arriva Tog’s response to Q4, question 11.1.
83 SNCF’s response to Q4, question 4.4.1.
84 Siemens’ response to Q3, question 12.1.
85 Minutes of conference call with Stadler, 24 March 2020, paragraph 8.
86 Q3, replies to question 13.1.1.
87 Siemens’ response to Q3, questions 13.2.1 and 13.3.
88 Q3, replies to question 12.1.
                                                       15
 ---pagebreak--- (79)   The Commission thus considers that, for the purpose of the present decision, on
       balance, a distinction between single-decker and double-decker trains is not
       warranted. The Commission will carry out the competitive assessment in the overall
       market without further segmentations based on train architecture.
(80)   In view of the considerations set out at paragraphs 60-79 above, for the purpose of
       the present decision, the Commission will conduct its competitive assessment of the
       mainline rolling stock markets considering that self-propelled mainline trains are
       distinct from locomotive-hauled trains. Within the market for self-propelled trains
       (segmented on the basis of traction), the Commission will assess both the overall
       market for self-propelled mainline trains and the separate market for EMUs (where
       the Transaction creates a horizontal overlap). The Transaction's impact in regional
       and intercity trains and will also be considered both on a single market and on
       hypothetical separate markets, so as to cover all conceivable hypotheses.
          5.2.1.3. Urban rolling stock
(81)   Urban rolling stock comprise railway vehicles used for mass transit and operating
       within cities, typically on closed networks, separate from mainline networks, that are
       not shared between operators or with freight rail transport. Urban rolling stock is
       characterised by lower speeds, more frequent stops, and/or high passenger capacity.
(82)   Urban rolling stock comprises trams and LRVs, metros and automated people
       movers. The Parties' activities overlap in trams, LRVs and metros.
       (A)         Metros
(83)   Metros are automated or non-automated (‘conventional’) electric vehicles operating
       within a city centre on segregated tracks, typically underground.
       (A.i)       The Notifying Party’s view
       (A.i.a) Segmentation between rubber tyre and steel wheels metros
(84)   The Notifying Party considers that steel wheel and rubber tyre metros may constitute
       separate markets given differences which hinder supply and demand substitutability.
(85)   From a demand-side perspective, the Notifying Party explains that customers
       typically require a specific type of wheel in their tender specifications. Their choice
       is driven by the various technical and operational differences between steel wheel
       and rubber tyre metros. For instance, while rubber tyre metros can navigate steeper
       slopes due to their well-adjusted grip and generate less noise, they are less energy
       efficient and have higher maintenance costs than steel wheel metros. The Notifying
       Party further states that rubber tyre metros are niche projects, with only seven new
       projects globally in the past 10 years, of which only five took place in the EEA.89
(86)   From a supply-side perspective, the Notifying Party indicates that there are several
       distinctions between rubber tyre and steel wheel metros. The primary difference is
89 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 19. Within the EEA there is no demand for rubber tyre projects outside
   of France with the exception of one single project in Italy (Turin). The Notifying Party further notes that
   there is also demand in Switzerland (Lausanne).
                                                        16
 ---pagebreak---         the use of different bogie technology and train architecture (namely the weight limit
        per axle), which impacts the length and width of each car. As a result, there is limited
        technical overlap between rubber tyre and steel wheel metros. The Notifying Party
        further states that not all steel wheel metro suppliers are active in the market for
        rubber tyre metros.90
(87)    The Notifying Party considers that the exact market definition can be left open as the
        Proposed Transaction does not give rise to any competitive concerns, regardless of
        the market definition.
        (A.i.b) Segmentation between automated and conventional metros
(88)    The Notifying Party considers that a segmentation between automated and
        conventional metros is not warranted.
(89)    From a supply-side perspective, the Notifying Party states that there are no
        significant differences between automated and conventional metros, which are based
        on the same platform, have the same car type, are produced with the same equipment
        and have the same key components (car bodies, bogies, traction, brakes converters,
        etc.). The majority of the principal components are shared between the conventional
        and automated versions of the same platform.91 Accordingly, suppliers’ current
        platforms are typically designed with both automated and conventional versions.
        Therefore, suppliers participate in both automated and conventional projects with
        different versions of the same platform.92
(90)    Furthermore, in terms of pricing, the Notifying Party estimates that the price
        difference between the automated and conventional configuration of the same
        platform does not exceed [5-10]%. Moreover, there is no need for a supplier to have
        a signalling business in order to supply automated metros. Even in cases where the
        rolling stock and signalling system are procured in the same tender, players that do
        not have their own independent signalling businesses can team up with others
        through consortia or sub-contracting in order to provide a complete offer.93
(91)    From a demand-side perspective, the Notifying Party considers that the difference
        between automated and conventional metros is blurred by customers, who
        sometimes requires metros which can be operated with a driver but with already all
        the necessary equipment and software to be operated in automated mode. Such
        solutions are requested where the customer envisages upgrading its lines to a fully
        automated system. Driverless-ready metros can easily be switched to automated
        operation without manual changes.94
90 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 19. Alstom and Siemens were the sole suppliers of rubber-tire metros in
   the EEA in the past 10 years.
91 Alstom estimates that c. 95% of components are used in both automated and conventional metros. The 5%
   of components which are specific to automated metros concern additional antennas (used for the on board
   units to communicate with the wayside equipment), emergency communication devices and remote-
   controlled safety systems (Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 29).
92 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 26 to 28.
93 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 31-32.
94 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 34.
                                                      17
 ---pagebreak--- (92)   In any event, the Notifying Party considers that the exact market definition can be
       left open as the Transaction does not raise competitive concerns regardless of the
       exact segmentation.
       (A.ii)    The Commission's decisional practice
       (A.ii.a) Segmentation between metros and other trains
(93)   In previous cases, the Commission identified a relevant product market for
       ‘underground vehicles’ which is separate from other types of trains such as
       trams/LRVs and mainline trains.95
(94)   In its decision in case Metronet/Infraco, the Commission assessed whether the
       supply of metros and the supply of mainline trains constitute two separate relevant
       markets. The Commission found that there are different standards and specifications
       between metros and mainline vehicles. However the Commission also considered
       that vehicle suppliers are frequently the same companies, which suggests the
       existence of a unified mainline / metro market. The Commission ultimately left this
       question open.96
       (A.ii.b) Segmentation between metros and people movers
(95)   In previous cases, the Commission identified a separate market for automated guided
       transport and automatic or airport people movers, distinct from the market for the
       supply of metros. The Commission defined people movers as completely automated
       vehicles that form part of an integrated transit system carrying passengers often in
       the context of terminal airports. As travel times are shorter and passengers may be
       carrying luggage, quick loading and unloading are crucial, which is why they are
       fitted with large doors and little seating capacity.97
       (A.ii.c) Segmentation between rubber tyres and steel wheels metros
(96)   In previous cases, the Commission defined the relevant market of ‘underground
       vehicles or metros’ as electric vehicles that ‘run on either steel or rubber wheels’.
       This definition thus considers rubber tyres and steel wheels metros to belong to the
       same product market.98
       (A.ii.d) Segmentation between automated and conventional metros
(97)   The Commission has not previously considered a distinction between automated and
       conventional metros.
95 Commission Decision in Case M.2139 - Bombardier/Adtranz (2001), recital 7.
96 Commission Decision in Case M.2694 - Metronet/Infraco (2002), recitals 26 and 27.
97 Commission Decision in Case M.685 - Siemens/Lagardère (1996), recital 16; Commission Decision in
   Case M.2139 - Bombardier/Adtranz (2001), recital 15; Commission Decision in Case M.7871 -
   Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK (2016), recital 22.
98 Commission Decision in Case M.2139 - Bombardier/Adtranz (2001), recital 14.
                                                    18
 ---pagebreak---         (A.iii)     Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
        (A.iii.a) Segmentation between metros and other trains
(98)    The results of the market investigation confirmed that metros constitute a product
        market distinct from other rolling stock, in particular trams/LRVs and mainline
        trains.
(99)    With respect to trams/LRVs, the vast majority of respondents to the market
        investigation (both customers and competitors) consider that metros and trams/LRVs
        constitute distinct product markets, due to different operating speed, passenger
        capacity and the fact that, unlike trams/LRVs, the metro infrastructure is usually
        segregated from overground traffic.99
(100) In addition, respondents indicated that, compared to trams/LRVs, metros carry a
        higher number of passengers, the stops between metro stations must be as short as
        possible, require larger doors entrances and higher performances for acceleration and
        braking.100
(101) With respect to mainline trains, the vast majority of respondents to the market
        investigation similarly indicated that metros and mainline trains constitute distinct
        product market.101 Respondents (both customers and competitors) mostly mentioned
        differences in terms of speed (lower for metros), segregated tracks for metros and
        requirement of higher acceleration/deceleration rate for metros than for mainline
        trains. Moreover, mainline trains serve stations that are much further apart than
        metros, while also covering longer distances overall than metros.102
(102) In light of the results of the market investigation, the relevant product market for the
        purpose of this decision is the market for the manufacture and supply of metros,
        excluding other rolling stock such as trams/LRVs and mainline trains.
        (A.iii.b) Segmentation between metros and automated people movers
(103) From both a demand and supply-side perspective, the large majority of respondents
        to the market investigation confirm that metros and automated people movers
        constitute distinct product markets.103
(104) Metros and automated people movers have different trainset infrastructures, capacity
        and speeds. People movers are smaller and have less passenger capacity than metros.
        Moreover, automated people movers have dedicated transport uses (e.g. airport
        terminal connections, theme park transport, etc.), while metros serve passenger
        transport covering large parts of major cities.104
99  Questionnaire 8 addressed to competitors in urban rolling stock (“Q8”), replies to question 3;
    Questionnaire 9 addressed to customers in urban rolling stock (“Q9”), replies to question 3.
100 Q9, replies to question 4.1.
101 Q8, replies to question 4; Q9, replies to question 4.
102 Q9, replies to question 4.1.
103 Q8, replies to question 5; Q9, replies to question 5.
104 Q8, replies to question 5.1.; Q9, replies to question 5.1.
                                                            19
 ---pagebreak--- (105) In addition, metros and automated people movers correspond to distinct tender
         specifications.105 Specifically, if a supplier was to offer a metro platform in a tender
         that required an automated people mover, the majority of respondents to the market
         investigation explained that such offer would likely not be eligible and/or
         competitive.106
(106) During the investigation, a competitor held the view that, from the supply-side,
         automated people movers and automated rubber-tyre metros with low/medium
         capacity107 are substitutable. According to this competitor, automated people movers
         and automated rubber tyre metros can compete in particular in greenfield projects,
         where the customer can make an infrastructure decision in order to fit either type of
         rolling stock.108
(107) However, this statement is not supported by evidence gathered in the course of the
         investigation. The Notifying Party explained that customers require different designs
         for automated people movers or automated rubber tyre metros (such as door size and
         seating capacity), so that suppliers develop different solutions.109 Another supplier
         confirmed that automated people movers or automated rubber tyre metros are not
         substitutable, as they address different service needs, which require different
         technical characteristics. Automated people movers are simple vehicles that operate
         in very specific proprietary system with very short distances (i.e., in airports or in
         some specific city locations) while automated rubber tyre metros with low/medium
         capacity correspond to metro systems (same type of line lengths, distance between
         stations, headways) but with a lower passenger transport capacity. 110 In addition, the
         limited number of specific tenders for which certain metro suppliers would be able to
         adjust their metro platform to compete in automated people mover tenders is limited
         to exceptional cases. In the case of Alstom, [Information on Alstom’s bidding data].
         Therefore, this constituted the exception and not the common industry practice.111
(108) These explanations are consistent with the overall results of the market investigation,
         which indicated that automated people movers and automated rubber tyre metros
         belong to distinct relevant markets, both from a demand and a supply-side
         perspective.112
(109) It follows from the above that the relevant product market for the purpose of this
         decision is the market for the manufacture and supply of metros, excluding other
         rolling stock such as people movers.
105 Q8, replies to questions 6 and 7.
106 Q8, replies to questions 8.1. and 8.2.; Q9, replies to question 8.1.
107 Also called Low Capacity Driverless Metros (‘LCDMs’).
108 Reply to RFI 24. For instance, the competitor indicates one project in the EEA, the 2012 Lille tender, in
    which Alstom’s modified RTMs platform competed against Bombardier’s Innovia APM solution,
    concerning the replacement of the rolling stocks for a legacy VAL system provided by Siemens in 1983.
109 Reply to RFI 37.
110 CAF, submission on 8 July 2020.
111 In that regard, the Commission notes that Alstom’s bid in the 2012 Lille tender was made with
    [Information on Alstom’s business strategy].
112 Q8, replies to questions 8.1. and 8.2.; Q9, replies to question 8.1.
                                                            20
 ---pagebreak---          (A.iii.c) Segmentation between rubber tyre and steel wheel metros
(110) The market investigation provided mixed results as to a possible distinction between
         rubber tyre and steel wheel metros.
(111) From a demand-side perspective, half of the customers that responded to the market
         investigation consider that rubber tyre and steel wheel metros constitute separate
         markets, while the other half supports the opposite view. However, most customers
         also explained that they have limited knowledge in that regard, considering that they
         only operate steel wheel metros. It is worth nothing that RATP, a very important
         urban rolling stock operator of both rubber tyre and steel wheel metros, indicated
         that both types of metros should be distinguished due to significant technical
         differences. RATP further explained that rubber-tyre metros constitutes a niche
         market.113 In addition, competitors tend to consider that there is a limited
         substitutability between rubber tyre and steel wheel metros from a customer’s
         perspective, as most respondents indicate that a steel-wheel would not be eligible
         and competitive in a tender for rubber-wheel metros, and vice versa.114
(112) From a supply-side perspective, a large majority of competitors consider that rubber
         tyre and steel wheel metros belong to the same market.115 In that regard, some
         respondents indicated that suppliers can easily switch between rubber tyre and steel
         wheel metros, as both types of metros share several components and a similar
         braking system. Some further explained that the main differences between both types
         of vehicles rests in the metro’s bogie, which requires specific developments in the
         case of a rubber wheel metro.116 Accordingly, some respondents indicated that an
         existing steel wheel metro could be easily adapted (i.e., in terms of time and cost)
         into a rubber wheel metro.117
(113) In any event, the exact delineation of the metro market can be left open as the
         Transaction will not give rise to competition concerns under any alternative market
         definition.
         (A.iii.d) Segmentation between automated and conventional metros
(114) Metros can be operated according to different levels of automation. These are
         referred to as Grades of Automation (‘GoAs’). As set out by the International
         Association of Public Transport (‘UITP’), there are five degrees of GoA. Each
         degree is defined according to the exact allocation of responsibilities between the
         driver and the system.118 In particular:
               GoA 0 corresponds on-sight operation, like a tram running in street traffic.
113 Q9, replies to question 12.1.
114 Q8, replies to questions 14.1. and 14.2.
115 Q8, replies to question 13.
116 Q8, replies to question 13.1.
117 Q8, replies to question 14.3.
118 See       ‘Press      Kit      –      Metro     Automation    Facts,    Figures  and       Trands’
    (https://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/Metro%20automation%20-%20facts%20and%20figures.pdf)
                                                         21
 ---pagebreak---               GoA 1 is manual train operation where a driver controls starting and
                  stopping, operation of doors, and handling of emergencies or sudden
                  diversions.
              GoA 2 is semi-automatic train operation where starting and stopping is
                  automated, but the driver controls train operation, operates the doors, drives
                  the train if needed and handles emergencies.
              GoA 3 is the first degree of driverless train operation where starting and
                  stopping are automated but a train attendant operates the doors and drives the
                  train in case of emergencies.
              GoA 4 refers to a system in which vehicles are run fully automatically
                  without any operating staff on-board. It is fully unattended train operation
                  where starting and stopping, operation of doors, and handling of emergencies
                  are fully automated without any on-train staff.
(115) According to these definitions, the level GoA 3 already corresponds to driverless
         metros. However, the Commission notes that the UITP uses the term ‘automated
         metro’ for platforms operating at GoA4. For the purpose of this decision, the exact
         definition of automated metros can be left open, as the Transaction does not give rise
         to competitive concerns regardless of the definition of ‘automated’ and
         ‘conventional’ metros.
(116) The market investigation provided mixed results as to the substitutability between
         automated and conventional metros.119 Overall, some respondents indicated that
         automated metros are becoming increasingly important and progressively replacing
         conventional ones.
(117) Respondents supporting a distinction between both types of metro indicated that
         automated metros require specific signalling equipment and that the amount of
         engineering expertise required to supply a platform and meet the customers’
         requirements is much higher for automated metros. In addition, competitors
         indicated that a conventional metro could not be eligible in a tender for automated
         metros (and vice versa).120 Conversely, other respondents claim that an existing
         conventional metro platform can easily be adapted into an automated platform,
         especially if it is in its pre-design, and that the different levels of automation
         applicable to the metro platform make the distinction between both types of vehicles
         blurry.121
(118) In any event, for the purpose of the present decision, the exact product market
         definition can be left open. The Transaction will be analysed on the possible relevant
         product markets of (i) conventional metros, (ii) automated metros (operated at GoA4
         or GoA3 and 4) and (iii) metros overall, including both conventional and automated
         metros.
119 Q8, replies to question 11; Q9, replies to question 10.
120 Q8, questions 12.1 and 12.2.
121 Q8, question 12.3.
                                                            22
 ---pagebreak---         (B)        Trams/LRVs
        (B.i)      The Notifying Party's views
(119) The Notifying Party submits that there is a single market for trams/LRVs with no
        further sub-segmentation on the basis of floors (low- or high-floor) or tyre (steel
        wheel or rubber tyre).
        (B.i.a)    Segmentation on the basis of floors (low- or high-floor)
(120) The Notifying Party states that the demand for high-floor trams/LRVs in the EEA is
        limited compared to low-floor trams and has been steadily decreasing in the past few
        years. The demand for high-floor trams/LRVs mainly originates from legacy
        infrastructures that require high-floor rolling stock (e.g., due to high-platform tram
        stops in existing rail systems). Customers also prefer low-floor trams as these are
        more easily accessible for passengers. Customers increasingly change their
        infrastructure and replace their high-floor with low-floor trams.122
(121) As a result, the demand for high-floor trams/LRVs essentially consists of repeat
        orders. Indeed, in 2010-2019 in the EEA, high-floor trams demand accounted for
        only [10-20]% of total orders, and only [5-10]% of contestable tenders for
        trams/LRVs.123
(122) Therefore the Notifying Party states that, even if there was a historic distinction
        between low-floor and high-floor tram/LRVs, this is no longer commercially
        relevant as high-floor trams/LRVs are increasingly becoming a niche product.
(123) The Notifying Party further states that low-floor and high-floor trams/LRVs are
        highly substitutable from a supply-side perspective. Many suppliers, including
        Bombardier and Stadler, offer both low-floor and high-floor solutions. In addition,
        suppliers that used to offer high-floor trams/LRVs can easily develop low-floor
        solutions in view of the decreased demand for high-floor trams/LRVs.124
(124) Therefore, the Notifying Party considers that a distinction between low-floor
        trams/LRVs and high-floor trams/LRVs is not warrantied.
        (B.i.b) Segmentation between rubber tyre and steel wheel trams/LRVs
(125) The Notifying Party submits that no segmentation between rubber tyre and steel
        wheel trams/LRVs is warrantied since rubber tyre trams/LRVs are a niche product.
        The demand for rubber tyre trams/LRVs is de minimis and exclusively for legacy
        infrastructure.125
122 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 121.
123 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 121.
124 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 121.
125 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 123. The Notifying Party indicates that there are only six rubber tyre
    trams/LRVs that are currently in operation in the EEA. To the Parties’ knowledge, there have been no
    rubber tyre tram/LRV projects for new lines in the EEA since at least 2010.
                                                         23
 ---pagebreak--- (126) In any event, the Notifying Party states that the exact market definition can be left
         open because the Parties’ activities do not overlap in a potential market segment for
         rubber tyre trams.126
         (B.ii)    The Commission’s decisional practice
(127) In previous cases, the Commission identified a relevant product market for
         trams/LRVs, distinct from other rolling stock and encompassing both trams and
         LRVs.127
(128) The Commission also considered high-floor and low-floor trams to belong to the
         same relevant market.128 In its decision in case M.2139 - Bombardier/ADtranz, the
         Commission noted the increasing demand for low-floor trams and the progressive
         replacement of high-floor trams by low-floor trams. From a demand-side
         perspective, operators have been found hesitant to switch to high-floor trams once
         they had introduced a low-floor system, because their investments in a low-floor
         infrastructure would be frustrated and because low-floor trams are better designed to
         grant disabled people better access to public transport. From a supply-side
         perspective, the Commission’s market investigation pointed towards substitutability
         between high-floor and low-floor trams. The Commission concluded that low-floor
         and high-floor trams/LRVs belong to the same product market.
(129) Finally, the Commission also considered steel wheel and rubber tyre trams/LRVs
         cannot be considered as distinct product markets but ultimately left the exact
         definition open.129
         (B.iii)   Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
         (B.iii.a) Segmentation between trams and LRVs
(130) A large majority of respondents consider that trams and LRVs belong to the same
         market.130
(131) From the demand-side, customers indicated that trams and LRVs share many
         technical requirements concerning vehicle design, speed, passenger flow, standing
         capacity, braking capacity, infrastructure size of doors, driveable curve radius. Some
         customers further indicate that the infrastructure of trams and LRVs are usually quite
         similar and can allow LRVs to be operated in tram systems. In addition, some
         customers state that trams and LRVs do not share a commonly understood definition
126 Bombardier last produced rubber tire trams in 2002 and has removed these products from its commercial
    offer since 2006. Alstom last delivered rubber tyre trams in 2015, when it supplied vehicles to existing
    lines for a repeat order. Alstom has since decided to stop the commercialization of its rubber tyre tram
    solution.
127 Commission decision in case IV/M.1064 – Bombardier / Deutsche Waggonbau (1998), recital 7;
    Commission decision in case COMP/M.2139 – Bombardier / ADtranz (2001), recital 7; Commission
    decision in case COMP/M.3653 – Siemens / VA Tech (2005), recital 113.
128 Commission decision in case COMP/M.2139 – Bombardier / ADtranz (2001), recital 13.
129 Commission decision in case COMP/M.6646 – Alstom Transport SA / FSI / Translohr (2012), recitals 10-
    22.
130 Q8, question 15 ; Q9, question 14.
                                                        24
 ---pagebreak---         in the industry. Finally, some customers indicate that suppliers generally offer both
        trams and LRVs.131
(132) The view expressed by customers is shared by competitors, which confirm that trams
        and LRVs are mostly similar in characteristics and that there is no clear distinction
        between both equipment within the industry. They also confirm that the delineation
        between the two types of vehicle is fluid, since they often operate as both trams and
        LRVs on a defined closed network within cities or between neighbouring cities, and
        sometimes sharing the wayside with road and pedestrian traffic.132
(133) As a consequence, the Commission considers that, for the purpose of this decision,
        trams and LRVs belong to the same market.
        (B.iii.b) Segmentation between low floor and high floor trams / LRVs
(134) Most respondents consider that low-floor and high-floor trams/LRVs do not belong
        to the same market.133 In that regard, respondents indicated that low-floor and high-
        floor do not share the same technicalities in terms of brake system, bogie, carbody,
        position of the components. Some further indicated that the vehicle design and the
        infrastructure of trams/LRVs are significantly different. In addition, some
        respondents indicated that low-floor and high-floor trams/LRVs do not exactly allow
        the same use, as for instance high-floor trams/LRVs have usually the advantage of
        being able to run on narrower tracks (curves) given that they usually have swivel
        bogies. A customer further stated that street levels may determine the possible use of
        low-floor or high-floor trams/LRVs.134
(135) Accordingly, most customers indicated that they distinguish between low-floor and
        high-floor trams/LRVs in tender specifications.135 Likewise, all competitors
        indicated that low-floor tram/LRVs would not be eligible in high-floor tram/LRV
        tenders and vice versa.136 In addition, all competitors indicated that an existing low-
        floor tram/LRV platform cannot be easily adapted into a high-floor tram/LRV.137
(136) Finally, the Commission notes that the demand in trams/LRVs is indeed evolving to
        the benefit of low-floor vehicles. For instance, both the customer De Lijn (Belgium)
        and the supplier Siemens (Germany) consider the demand for high-floor trams/LRV
        is at least limited if not gradually disappearing from the market. In that regard,
        Siemens explained that the demand for high-floor trams/LRVs is mainly due to
        legacy infrastructure.138
(137) In any event, the exact delineation of the trams/LRVs market with respect to a
        possible segmentation between low-floor and high-floor can be left open as the
        Transaction will not give rise to competition concerns under any alternative market
        definition.
131 Q9, replies to question 14.1.
132 Q8, replies to question 15.1.
133 Q8, question 19 ; Q9, question 18.
134 Q8, replies to question 19.1.; Q9, replies to question 18.1.
135 Q9, question 19.
136 Q8, questions 20.1 and 20.2.
137 Q8, question 20.3.
138 Q8, reply from Siemens to question 19.1.; Q9, reply from De Lijn to question 18.1.
                                                            25
 ---pagebreak---         (B.iii.c) Segmentation between rubber tyre and steel wheel trams/LRVs
(138) A majority of respondents consider that steel-wheel and rubber-tire trams/LRVs do
        not belong to the same market.
(139) In that regard, some respondents explain that rubber tyre and steel wheel
        trams/LRVs are not interchangeable due to infrastructure constraints.139 A customer
        (STIB) further indicated that rubber tyre and steel wheel trams/LRVs are not
        comparable in terms of lifetime and system cost, as rubber tyre trams/LRVs entail
        lower infrastructure costs but higher complexity of maintenance.140 In addition, a
        competitor (Knorr Bremse) indicated that the brake system for a rubber tyre
        trams/LRVs differs completely from steel wheel trams/LRVs as the former uses
        trucks and buses brake systems.141
(140) Accordingly, most customers indicated that they distinguish between rubber wheel
        and rubber tire trams/LRVs in their tenders.142 Likewise, most competitors indicated
        that a steel wheel tram/LRV would not be eligible in the rubber wheel tram/LRV
        tender and vice versa.143 Some competitors further indicated that an existing steel
        wheel tram/LRV platform cannot be easily adapted into a rubber wheel one.144
(141) Finally, the Commission notes that some competitors (Stadler, Siemens) consider
        that the demand for rubber wheel trams/LRVs is very limited and that steel wheel
        trams/LRVs are prevailing in the EEA.145
(142) The Parties’ activities do not overlap in the potential market for rubber tyre
        trams/LRVs. As a consequence, for the purpose of the present decision, the possible
        relevant markets are (i) the overall market for trams/LRVs (including steel wheel
        and rubber-tyre) and (ii) the steel wheel trams/LRVs market. In any event, the exact
        delineation of the trams/LRVs market can be left open as the Transaction will not
        give rise to competition concerns under any alternative market definition.
          5.2.1.4. Locomotives
(143) Locomotives are self-propelled vehicles designed to haul and/or push passenger
        coaches and freight wagons. Solely designed for traction, locomotives cannot carry
        passengers or have loading capacity.
(144) Mainline locomotives are high power locomotives used in the mainline traffic for
        hauling and/or pushing passenger coaches and (heavy) freight wagons. Shunting
        locomotives are low power locomotives that are used for organising train cars into
        complete train sets, or for parking trains and/or track works. They operate at lower
        speed than mainline locomotives. Certain shunting locomotives can be also used to
        haul light freight cargo over shorter distances on mainline networks.
139 Q8, replies to question 17.1. ; Q9, replies to question 16.1.1.
140 Q9, reply to question 16.1.1.
141 Q8, reply to question 17.1.1.
142 Q9, replies to question 17.
143 Q8, replies to questions 18.1 and 18.2.
144 Q8, replies to question 18.3.
145 Q8, replies to question 17.1.1.
                                                            26
 ---pagebreak---         (A)         The Notifying Party's views
(145) The Notifying Party considers that mainline and shunting locomotives constitute
        separate product markets because they are used for different purposes and exhibit
        significant technical differences. From the demand-side perspective, mainline
        locomotives are used to haul and/push passenger coaches and freight wagons over
        long distances and thus require significant power. Shunting locomotive have a lower
        power output and are designed to manoeuvre train cars and train sets in marshalling
        yard and/or haul ballast for track works. From the supply-side perspective, there are
        significant technical differences between the mainline and shunting locomotives
        (e.g., in terms of speed or track and security devices).146
(146) The Notifying Party considers that mainline locomotives should not be further
        segmented between electric and diesel locomotives, irrespective of technical
        differences in terms of traction. The Notifying Party submits that such a
        segmentation is not necessary for shunting locomotives as electric shunting
        locomotives are a niche product. Shunting operations are mainly performed by diesel
        locomotives as ports, industrial railways and works are not electrified.147
        (B)         The Commission's decisional practice
(147) In past decisions, the Commission found that locomotives constitute a separate
        product market. In case Knorr Bremse/Vossloh, the Commission noted that there are
        ‘significant technical differences’ between mainline and shunting locomotives and
        suppliers tend to specialise in either of two. The Commission therefore considered
        that mainline locomotives and shunting locomotives belong to separate markets.148
(148) In previous decisions, the Commission found a distinction between electric and
        diesel locomotives.149 In a more recent decision, in case Siemens/VA Tech, the
        Commission left the distinction between electric and diesel locomotives open.150
        (C)         Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(149) The majority of respondents to the market investigation indicated that mainline
        locomotives and shunting locomotives constitute separate product markets.151
        Respondents indicated that mainline locomotives and shunting locomotives serve
        different purposes and are subject to different technical specifications, including in
        terms of speed, power, energy supply, capacity to manoeuvre, homologation,
        infrastructure requirements.152 The results of the market investigation confirmed that
        mainline locomotives could be also sub-segmented on the basis of the type of
        traction.153
(150) Therefore, for the purpose of this decision, the Commission considers that mainline
        and shunting locomotives constitute separate markets. The Commission considers
146 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 19.
147 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 21-22.
148 Commission Decision in case M.7538 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh of 14 September 2015, recital 62.
149 Commission Decision in case IV/M.580 - ABB/Daimler Benz of 18 October 1995, recital 9.
150 Commission Decision in case M.3653 – Siemens/Va Tech (2005), recital 113.
151 Q3, replies to question 15.2; Q4, replies to question 12.2
152 Q4, replies to question 12.2.1.
153 Q3, replies to questions 15.1 and 15.1.1; Q4, replies to questions 12.1 and 12.1.1.
                                                           27
 ---pagebreak---          that the question whether mainline locomotives should be further segmented based
         on the type of traction between electric and diesel locomotives can be left open as
         the Transaction will not give rise to competition concerns under any plausible
         product market definition.
           5.2.1.5. Components and spare parts
(151) Components are pieces of equipment, which are used as inputs for the manufacture
         of rolling stock. The Notifying Party explains that rolling stock components are
         rolling stock inputs that are less than a complete trainset (or coach or locomotive). A
         defining feature of components is that they are not independently performing
         products, i.e., they need to be integrated into a trainset, locomotive or coach in order
         to deliver functional performance. Examples include bogies, dampers, and
         switchgears.154
(152) Rolling-stock subsystems typically include a combination of hardware (i.e., rolling
         stock components) and control mechanisms which deliver a particular functional
         performance. Similar to components, sub-systems cannot independently deliver the
         full performance and functionality associated with an ‘integrated solution’ (in this
         case a rolling stock vehicle).155 The Notifying Party explains that components could
         be seen as passive devices (i.e., hardware but no control mechanisms) while sub-
         systems are active devices (a combination of hardware and control mechanisms).156
(153) Spare parts refer to pieces of equipment used to replace worn, damaged, or fully
         consumed parts which are already installed on existing rolling stock. Examples of
         spare parts are brakes and wheels.
         (A)       The Notifying Party's views
(154) The Notifying Party submits that components constitute a separate product market
         from other rail-related products such as rolling stock, maintenance, repair, and
         refurbishment services. The Notifying Party considers that components may not be
         substitutable with each other (e.g., electrical components cannot replace mechanical
         components). The Notifying Party considers spare parts to be part of a larger market
         for rolling stock aftermarket solutions.157
(155) However, the Notifying Party submits that the precise product market definition can
         be left open because the Parties' activities do not overlap in the EEA and the
         Transaction will not give rise to competition concerns under any product market
         definition.158
154 Response to RFI 35 of 6 July 2020, paragraph 2.2.
155 The Notifying Party provides the following examples: the propulsion system (also called the Propulsion &
    Power Control or PPC) is a rolling stock sub-system which allows electrical energy to be converter to
    mechanical energy and propel a vehicle. It integrates components such as induction machines and
    transformers, as well as insulated-gate bipolar transistors. Another example of a sub-system is the Train
    Control and Management System or TCMS, i.e., the standard control, communication, and train
    management system for rolling stock platforms, and which is made up a mixture of hardware and
    software. See Response to RFI 35 of 6 July 2020, paragraph 2.4.
156 Response to RFI 35 of 6 July 2020, paragraph 2.5.
157 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 63.
158 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 63.
                                                          28
 ---pagebreak---         (B)       Commission's decisional practice
(156) In case Alstom/Fiat Ferroviaria, the Commission included spare parts in its
        ‘miscellaneous’ category. The Commission did not clearly identify separate
        segments for components and spare parts.159 In case Cardo/Thyssen, the Commission
        identified a separate product market for spare parts and distinguished spare parts
        from sales of ‘original equipment.’ The Commission included spare parts in a
        broader aftermarket category. The Commission found that contracts for spare parts
        are usually entered into with the end user (generally an operator), whereas contracts
        for original equipment are usually concluded with other rolling stock suppliers
        (assemblers).160 The Commission considered separate segments based on the type of
        spare part, but left the exact definition open.
(157) In more recent decisions, the Commission found that certain components for rolling
        stock, each constituted separate product market. In case Knorr Bremse/Vossloh, the
        Commission found that HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) systems,
        friction/service brake systems and door systems were separate product markets.161
        The Commission considered whether HVAC systems and door systems could be
        further segmented by type of rolling stock vehicles.162 The Commission also
        considered whether friction/service brake systems could be segmented between
        pneumatic and hydraulic brake systems, but left the exact product market definition
        open.
(158) In case Wabtec/Faiveley, the Commission found that energy meters, event recorders,
        doors, pneumatic friction brake systems and sub-systems, friction materials in disc
        brakes, brake discs and pantographs each constituted separate product markets.163
        The Commission considered whether components should be sub-segmented by types
        of rolling stock or components, but left open the precise product market definition.164
(159) In case Knorr-Bremse, the Commission found the supply of components and spare
        parts take place in the the original equipment manufacturers (‘OEM’) and the
        independent after-market (‘IAM’) respectively. In the OEM market, components are
        sold to rolling stock suppliers by component suppliers while in the IAM market,
        spare parts are sold by the same components suppliers but to rail operators directly.
        The Commission found that rolling stock suppliers also supply spare parts. The
        Commission found nonetheless that the IAM market largely mirrors the OEM
        market, and assessed the OEM market only.165 In the most recent Wabtec/Faiveley
        case, the Commission endorsed the Commission's finding in Knorr/Bremse, but
        added that the latter case concerned components that do not require regular
        replacement. The Commission further explained that the situation may be different
        for components that need regular replacement. The Commission accordingly
159 Commission Decision in Case M.2069 – Alstom/Fiat Ferroviaria (2000), paragraph 8.
160 Commission Decision in Case M.818 – Cardo/Thyssen (1996), paragraph 19.
161 Commission Decision in case M.7538 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh (2015), paragraphs 40, 48 and 55.
162 Commission Decision in case M.7538 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh (2015), paragraphs 40, 48 and 55.
163 Commission Decision in Case M.7801 – Wabtec/Faiveley (2016), recitals 35, 54, 75, 100-101, 237, 415-
    417.
164 Commission Decision in Case M.7538 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh (2015), paragraph 40.
165 Commission Decision in Case M.7538 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh (2015), paragraphs 28-36.
                                                     29
 ---pagebreak---          conducted the effects of the Transaction for friction materials and brake discs
         separately in the IAM markets.166
         (C)        Result of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(160) The market investigation did not provide indications to depart from the Notifying
         Party's views and the Commission's most recent decisional practice according to
         which each type of component constitutes a separate product market from rolling
         stock and that there may be a separate market for spare parts.167
(161) The results of the market investigation confirmed the Commission’s decisional
         practice that each type of rolling stock component (e.g., bogies, electrical equipment,
         wheels axes, propulsion, converters etc.) constitutes a separate market.168
         Respondents indicated that each component has specific technical requirements (also
         in terms of R&D), serve a different function and are subject to separate procurement.
         Wabtec explained that ‘[c]ar builders' procurement operations are broken down by
         railway components, because of the very specific technical content of each system.
         The specs of each component vary upon various factors: rolling stock mission
         profile, operators specifics expectations and existing installed base, local norms and
         regulations, system interfaces’.169
(162) With regard to spare parts, a majority of respondents considered that spare parts
         constitute a separate market distinct from other rail-related products such as rolling
         stock, maintenance and components.170 There are mixed results as to whether
         customers procure spare parts at the same time and in the same tender as the rolling
         stock. Customer tend to procure spare parts from the rolling stock supplier for the
         duration of the warranty period. This is also true for customers that do not outsource
         their maintenance services but carry them out in-house. After the warranty period,
         some customers appear to continue to procure spare parts from the rolling stock
         OEMs while others procure directly from component suppliers. Several customers
         expressed the view that the aftermarket for the supply of spare part is more robust.171
(163) For the purpose of this decision, the Commission considers that there is a separate
         market for each type of component and a separate market for spare parts. The
         Commission will carry out the competitive assessment on that basis.
           5.2.1.6. Maintenance and refurbishment
(164) Maintenance services are operations which are essentially conducted to keep rolling
         stock vehicles in good order to operate. Examples of services are repair and
         components exchanges. Refurbishment services consist in operations which
         essentially aim at modernising rolling stock vehicle and extending their commercial
         life and/or improving their reliability, functionality and comfort.
166 Commission Decision in Case M.7801 – Wabtec/Faiveley (2016), paragraphs 237 and 393.
167 Q3, replies to questions 17; Q4, replies to question 14; Q10 – Questionnaire to suppliers of components
    (‘Q10’), replies to questions 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7.
168 Q10, replies to question 6.
169 Q10, replies to question 6.1.
170 Q1, replies to question 8 ; Q2, replies to question 8; Q8, replies to question 23 ; Q9, replies to question 21
171 Q4, replies to question 58.1.
                                                            30
 ---pagebreak---         (A)        The Notifying Party's views
        (A.i)      Segmentation between maintenance and refurbishment services vs rolling
                   stock
(165) The Notifying Party explains that customers (rail operators) mainly provide rolling
        stock maintenance services in-house. When customers opt to outsource the provision
        of maintenance services to third parties, they typically rely on the OEM of the rolling
        stock. In the Notifying Party’s view, the extent to which customers outsource
        maintenance or refurbishment services depends on factors such as size of services
        and maintenance workforce, and its engineering capabilities.172
(166) According to the Notifying Party, when customers decide to rely on third parties for
        maintenance services, they often tender the maintenance services contract together
        with the tender for the rolling stock, such that the supplier of the rolling stock will
        also provide the maintenance services, typically for a specified period. The Notifying
        Party estimates that up to [30-40]% of the total yearly outsourced rolling stock
        maintenance services in the EEA are tendered simultaneously with the new rolling
        stock vehicles.173 Furthermore, the Notifying Party submits that when the tender
        concerns a standalone maintenance contract (e.g., when the initial contract expires),
        the incumbent supplier has an advantage over other bidders and is best placed to win
        the new contract (due to existing knowledge of the technical details of the rolling
        stock and required maintenance procedures).174
(167) The Notifying Party considers that, similar to maintenance services, refurbishment
        works may be carried out either in-house or outsourced to the incumbent OEM
        supplier, and in some cases by specialist engineering companies with railway-related
        expertise.175
(168) Therefore, the Notifying Party submits the relevant market for maintenance and
        refurbishment services includes all maintenance and refurbishment services, whether
        carried out by operators in-house, by OEMs or by third party maintenance
        suppliers.176
        (A.ii)     Segmentations within rolling stock maintenance
(169) First, the Notifying Party submits that light maintenance can be distinguished from
        heavy maintenance. Light maintenance includes day-to-day repairs, component
        exchanges and safety checks carried out on a regular basis, while heavy maintenance
        covers more substantial interventions and major overhaul of railway vehicles. From
        the supply side, suppliers typically offer both light and heavy maintenance services.
        The Notifying Party submits that further segmentation of maintenance services is not
        necessary.177
172 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 104. The Notifying Party refers to UNIFE (the European rail supply
    industry association) and SCI Verkehr data, according to which around 60% of rolling stock maintenance
    and refurbishment work in the EEA by value is carried out by customers in-house.
173 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 106.
174 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 108.
175 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 110.
176 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 111.
177 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 112.
                                                        31
 ---pagebreak--- (170) Second, the Notifying Party explains that a further segmentation by train type is not
         warranted as the scope maintenance services is comparable across different type of
         trains and the suppliers of maintenance services typically supply maintenance
         services for all types of trains. Similarly, maintenance techniques are very similar for
         all types of trains.178
(171) Third, the Notifying Party considers that no distinction between (light and heavy)
         maintenance and refurbishment services is warranted. Refurbishment services
         involve the modernisation and adaptation of rolling stock vehicles and their
         components. In the Notifying Party’s view, all major suppliers can and do typically
         provide both maintenance and refurbishment services. From a demand-side
         perspective, customers that require refurbishment services sometimes also contract
         the refurbishment provider to carry out maintenance services on the refurbished
         rolling stock.179 Furthermore, contracts that provide for full maintenance over 30
         years typically also provide for refurbishment and overhaul services. In any event,
         the Notifying Party submits that the exact market definition can be left open since
         refurbishment makes up a very small portion (c. 11%) of the overall maintenance
         and refurbishment market and the Transaction does not raise concerns under any
         possible segmentation.180
         (B)        The Commission's decisional practice
(172) In case Bombardier/ADtranz, the Commission found that light maintenance, heavy
         maintenance and refurbishment require different equipment, skills and technology
         and therefore constitute separate product markets.181
(173) In case Metronet/Infraco, the Commission considered whether the supply of new
         rolling stock could be analysed together with the maintenance of that rolling stock.
         However, the Commission ultimately left open whether the supply of maintenance
         services should be considered as complementary services within one single market
         with rolling stock supply.182
(174) In the more recent case Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK case, the
         Commission noted its previous findings in Bombardier/ADtranz and
         Metronet/Infraco, but left the exact product market definition open.183
         (C)        Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(175) The results of the market investigation did not depart from the Notifying Party's
         views and the Commission's decisional practice according to which maintenance
         services constitute a separate product market. Similarly, the market investigation did
         not provide indications to depart from the Commission's decisional practice
178 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 113.
179 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 114. The Notifying Party provides the example of Bombardier that has
    undertaken to provide both maintenance and refurbishment services on 59 Regina EMUs for AB Transitio
    in Sweden, and a Stadler/OBB joint venture that is providing both maintenance and refurbishment
    services on 17 KISS EMUs in Austria for DB.
180 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 114. The Notifying Party refers to data from SCI Verkehr from 2017.
181 Commission Decision in Case M.2139 – Bombardier/Adtranz (2001), recital 16.
182 Commission Decision in Case M.2694 – Metronet/Infraco (2002), recital 30.
183 Commission Decision in Case M.7871 – Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK (2016),
    recitals 18-21.
                                                       32
 ---pagebreak---         regarding the distinction between light maintenance, heavy maintenance and
        refurbishment due to different equipment, skills and technology.184
(176) The results of the market investigation were mixed as regards the precise scope of
        the market. Respondents confirmed that depending on the customers’ requirements,
        competencies and existing infrastructure, there can be different procurement patterns
        for maintenance services. Maintenance services can indeed be provided in-house,
        and the market for maintenance services is therefore partly captive. Some
        respondents indicated that national railway operators tend to carry out maintenance
        in-house, while private operators would typically outsource the provision of
        maintenance.185 Several customers that participated to the market investigation
        indicated that when maintenance services are procured from third parties, they are
        typically procured at the same time and from the same supplier as the rolling
        stock.186 This seems to vary depending on the type of rolling stock. With regard to
        very-high speed trains, customers tender to procure maintenance services separately
        from their procurement of rolling stock.
(177) A majority of customers that responded to the market investigation indicates that if
        maintenance services are supplied together with mainline trains it is generally for a
        fixed period of time (that varies between 10 and 25 years, depending on the
        customer). Some private operators indicate that the duration of the maintenance
        contract coincides with the duration of the lease or franchise agreement.187
(178) The Commission considers, for the purpose of this decision, that the market for the
        provision of maintenance services is separate from the supply of other rail-related
        products such as rolling stock, spare parts and components. The Commission
        considers that the exact product market definition for maintenance services (i.e.,
        whether an overall market or further segmented by light, heavy maintenance and
        refurbishment or segmented by type of rolling stock) can be left open as the
        Transaction will not give rise to competition concerns under any alternative product
        market definition.
5.2.2. Geographic market definition
           5.2.2.1. Introduction and framework for reference
(179) The Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market 188 highlights that
        the Commission ‘will take a preliminary view of the scope of the geographic market
        on the basis of broad indications as to the distribution of market shares between the
        parties and their competitors, as well as a preliminary analysis of pricing and price
        differences at national and Community or EEA level’.189 The Commission will also
        need to explore ‘the reasons behind any particular configuration of prices and
184 Q1, question 8 ; Q2, question 8; Q3, replies to question 16.1; Q4, replies to question 13.1; Q8, question
    21.2 ; Q9, question 20.2.
185 Q3, replies to questions 73.1 and 73.2.
186 Q2, replies to question 64; Q3, replies to questions 73 and 73.1; Q4, replies to question 58; Q8, replies to
    question 68; Q9, replies to question 66.
187 Q2, replies to question 64 ; Q4, replies to questions 16, 16.1, 16.2; Q9, replies to question 66.
188 Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law
    (OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, p. 5–13).
189 Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market, paragraph 28.
                                                           33
 ---pagebreak---         market shares […]’.190 For example, ‘companies might enjoy high market shares in
        their domestic markets just because of the weight of the past, and conversely, a
        homogeneous presence of companies throughout the EEA might be consistent with
        national or regional geographic markets’.191
(180) The Notice goes on to identify a number of factors such as the ‘importance of
        national or local preferences, current patterns of purchases of customers, product
        differentiation/brands, other) in order to establish whether companies in different
        areas do indeed constitute a real alternative source of supply for consumers’ and
        ‘the question to answer is again whether the customers of the parties would switch
        their orders to companies located elsewhere in the short term and at a negligible
        cost’.192 The Notice also states that ‘the Commission will identify possible obstacles
        and barriers isolating companies located in a given area from the competitive
        pressure of companies located outside the area, so as to determine the precise
        degree of market interpenetration at national, European or global level’.193
          5.2.2.2. Very high-speed rolling stock
        (A)       The Notifying Party's views
(181) The Notifying Party considers that the relevant geographic market(s) for (very) high-
        speed trains is worldwide and likely excluding China, Japan and South Korea.
(182) First, the Notifying Party explains that high-speed rolling stock suppliers compete
        globally for a few and prestigious large tenders. The market for high and very high-
        speed trains is characterised by infrequent, but large, orders. In the past 10 years,
        only 14 contestable projects were awarded worldwide (excluding China, Japan and
        South Korea) including nine in the EEA and Switzerland. According to the
        Notifying Party, the low number of contestable tenders and their commercial
        significance incentivises high-speed suppliers to participate more frequently and
        actively in tenders, irrespective of the country in which the tender takes place.194
(183) Second, the Notifying Party considers that EEA-specific technical requirements do
        not constitute a barrier to entry in the EEA for non-European high-speed suppliers.
        High-speed suppliers compete globally regardless of authorisation requirements.
        Competition at the global level is made easier by the fact that all suppliers already
        comply with similar standards and that high-speed trains are typically tailored to a
        specific customer’s specifications and needs. Differences between national, EEA and
        other technical requirements are thus tackled in the context of customization for each
        customer. According to the Notifying Party, this also applies to non-European
        suppliers as they already comply with high standards in their home countries.
        Indeed, technical requirements in and outside the EEA are increasingly similar.
        European standards have in fact often been the basis for other standards.195
190 Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market, paragraph 29.
191 Idem.
192 Idem.
193 Commission Notice on the definition of the relevant market, paragraph 30.
194 Form CO, paragraph 43.
195 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraphs 48 to 50.
                                                        34
 ---pagebreak--- (184) Third, the Notifying Party considers that there are no significant differences in prices
         between EEA and the rest of the world. In that regard, the Notifying Party submits
         that EEA standards are not necessarily more costly to comply with than standards
         applicable in non-EEA jurisdictions, such as the US. Moreover, even if prices differ
         across regions, that alone is not indicative of different geographic markets, because
         prices are typically not comparable across projects due to customization
         requirements.196
(185) In any event, the Notifying Party considers that the geographic market definition for
         very high-speed rolling stock can be left open, since the Transaction does give rise to
         competitive concern regardless of the market definition (EEA (including
         Switzerland) or worldwide (excluding China, Japan, and South Korea) level).
         (B)         The Commission’s decisional practice
(186) In its decision Siemens/Alstom, the Commission considered that the geographic
         scope of the market(s) for both high and very high-speed trains include at least the
         EEA and Switzerland. The Commission also considered that the market could be
         worldwide, excluding China, South Korea and Japan, in scope, but ultimately left the
         question open.197
(187) With respect to the EEA-wide delimitation of the market, the Commission noted that
         high-speed and very high-speed platforms are under specific technical requirements
         in the EEA. It further considered that TSIs have contributed to harmonising the
         authorisation requirements within the whole EEA. In addition, the Commission
         noticed that the set of competitors bidding for high and very high-speed contracts
         within the EEA differs from the ones in the rest of the world, and that prices for the
         same type of high-speed rolling stock differ significantly between customers located
         in the EEA and those located in the rest of the world, due to additional costs
         associated with EEA-specific standards.198 The Commission also considered that
         Switzerland should be included in the relevant geographic market, due to its
         adoption of equivalent rules and participation in the EU railway regulatory
         framework and the absence of barriers to entry for EEA-based suppliers.199
(188) With respect to the global geographic market, the Commission noted that demand
         outside of the EEA is expected to grow and that, as other regions develop their high-
         speed rail infrastructures, certain non-EEA countries appear to adopt EU regulatory
         standards in their own calls for tenders, demanding TSI-compliant rolling stock.200
         Furthermore, the Commission considered that China, Japan and South Korea should
196 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraphs 56-57. For instance, the Parties understand that Talgo supplied high-
    speed trains capable of speeds of up to 300 km/h to Saudi Railways Organization (‘SRO’) for €34 million
    per trainset (following the 2011 tender) and will supply trains capable of (2) speeds of up to 350 km/h to
    Renfe for €20 million per trainset (following the 2016 tender). While it is difficult to make a like-for-like
    comparison of selling prices, including due to different customer requirements (e.g., as regards train size
    and passenger capacity), this example nonetheless illustrates that the customer’s geographic location or
    applicable regulatory standards cannot, of themselves, explain differences in price.
197 Commission decision of 8 February 2018 in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 133.
198 Commission decision of 8 February 2018 in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recitals 113 to 118.
199 Commission decision of 8 February 2018 in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 126.
200 Commission decision of 8 February 2018 in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 128.
                                                          35
 ---pagebreak---          be excluded from the global geographic market due to insurmountable barriers to
         enter these national markets.201
         (C)        Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(189) The results of the market investigation fully confirmed the Commission’s findings in
         Siemens/Alstom.
(190) A large majority of respondents consider that the relevant markets for both high and
         very high-speed trains are at least EEA-wide and include Switzerland, due in
         particular to the applicable EU regulatory and technical requirements and
         homologation standards.202 In that regard, the majority of respondents indicated that
         the authorisation requirements across the EEA for high-speed and very high-speed
         rolling stock have become similar as a result of EEA-wide Technical Specifications
         for Interoperability (TSIs).203 For instance, a customer stated that, in order to bid for
         a European tender, non-European manufacturers ‘have to adapt their products to
         European TSI, which implies very high costs. Therefore, their offers are not enough
         competitive compared to those of Europe-based bidders. As a consequence, in our
         past experience, only Europe-based manufacturers has participated to tenders.’204
(191) In addition, a majority of competitors consider that it cannot be excluded that the
         geographic market for very high-speed is also global market excluding China, South
         Korea and Japan.205 However, the explanation provided from respondents in that
         regard show that European technical and regulatory standards remain a significant
         barrier to enter for non-European suppliers. In particular, CRRC considers that the
         geographic market for very high-speed trains should be defined as EEA-wide
         including Switzerland in scope.206 The results are rather mixed from a customers’
         perspective. Some respondents indicated that Asian competitors (Hyundai Rotem,
         CRRC) were willing to enter the European market. However, a majority of
         customers consider that CRRC, Hyundai Rotem and Kawasaki do not constitute
         credible bidders for the procurement of VHS trains.207
(192) In light of the results of the market investigation, and in accordance with the
         Siemens/Alstom decision, the Commission considers that, for the purpose of the
201 Commission decision of 8 February 2018 in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 129. More
    specifically, the Commission noted that in China, barriers to entry include (i) rules under which only
    Chinese majority-owned companies are allowed to bid for rolling stock contracts; (ii) the direct award of
    contracts to domestic suppliers; (iii) the requirement that companies be licensed to bid for contracts, under
    no pre-defined criteria, effectively resulting in licenses only granted to Chinese-controlled company; (iv)
    public procurement rules requiring local production. In Japan, barriers to entry include (i) a clause
    allowing Japan to circumvent the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement in the rail sector for
    reasons of ‘operational safety’, which has been used to prevent foreign firms from bidding in procurement
    contracts and avoid the publication of open tenders; (ii) limited open procurement; (iii) discriminatory and
    complex procurement rules de facto benefiting local companies. In South Korea, barriers to entry include
    (i) tendering procedures tailor-made for the domestic industry and lacking transparency for foreign
    suppliers; (ii) government backing of Hyundai-Rotem; (iii) requirements in relation to licensing and
    technology transfers; (iv) the express exclusion of EU suppliers from tenders until 2015.
202 Q1, replies to questions 12.2 and 12.2.1; Q2, replies to questions 11.2 and 11.2.1.
203 Q1, question 14.
204 Q2, reply to question 11.1.1.
205 Q1, replies to question 13.2.
206 Q1, reply from CRRC to question 13.2.
207 Q2, replies to question 12.2 and 14.
                                                            36
 ---pagebreak---        present case, the exact geographic market definition for very high-speed rolling
       stock can be left open. The Commission will address its competitive assessment both
       at EEA (including Switzerland) and global level.
         5.2.2.3. Mainline trains
       (A)       The Notifying Party's views
(193) The Notifying Party considers that the geographic market for mainline trains is at
       least EEA-wide for the following reasons: (i) suppliers participate in mainline
       tenders across the EEA, and all major players are active across the EEA; (ii)
       suppliers win projects across the EEA regardless of their footprint; (iii) the
       harmonisation of technical standards in the EEA facilitates EEA-wide competition
       because standardisation reduces the cost of adapting rolling stock equipment to local
       specifications and offering trains that can operate in several Member States; and (iv)
       the increased use of platform-based products makes it easier for suppliers to adapt
       their trains to national requirements, thus making it easier for suppliers to operate
       throughout the EEA.208
(194) The Notifying Party submits that the geographic market also includes Switzerland
       for the following reasons: (i) similar technical requirements apply in Switzerland and
       the EEA in the areas of railway interoperability and railway safety, also evidenced
       by the fact that Switzerland is a member of the ERA, and (ii) there is no material
       difference between suppliers participating in projects in the EEA and Switzerland.209
(195) In any event, the Notifying Party considers that the geographic market definition can
       be left open as the Transaction does not give rise to competition concerns regardless
       of the market definition.
       (B)       The Commission's decisional practice
(196) In Bombardier/ADtranz, the Commission considered the market for regional trains
       to be national in scope and considered both national and EEA markets for intercity
       trains, leaving the geographic market definition for intercity trains open. The
       Commission noted that the market for regional trains was still national, especially in
       Member States with a strong rail industry, and in view of the different national
       standards for rail infrastructure across Member States.210
(197) In Alstom Holdings/Areva T&D, the Commission considered whether the market for
       EMUs for intercity and regional transport should be considered EEA-wide instead of
       national, noting that all respondents to the market investigation had pointed towards
       an at least EEA-wide market for EMUs. The Commission ultimately left the
       geographic market definition open.211
208 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 42.
209 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 43.
210 Commission Decision in Case M.2139 – Bombardier/Adtranz (2001), recitals 19-23.
211 Commission Decision in Case M.5754 – Alstom Holdings/Areva T&D (2010), recitals 40-43.
                                                     37
 ---pagebreak---         (C)         Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(198) The market investigation is inconclusive as to whether the relevant product markets
        are national or EEA-wide, including Switzerland. Responses from competitors and
        customers are mixed as regards the geographic scope of the market.212 Nevertheless,
        the Commission considers that there are strong indications that the market for self-
        propelled mainline rolling stock and possible segmentation are national in scope due
        to country-specific technical differences, authorisation and homologation
        requirements, and barriers to entry identified in France and Germany.
(199) The Commission considers that self-propelled mainline trains are significantly
        different in terms of customer preference, technical specifications, and regulatory
        requirements in different countries of the EEA such that a self-propelled mainline
        train operated within one EEA country could not be used in another EEA country
        absent significant adaptation. This view is supported by a majority of competitors.213
(200) The continued existence of national technical specifications is cited as a reason for
        markets being national. CAF claims that the markets are national because ‘[e]ven
        with TSI compliance, country specific technical specifications (gauge, envelope,
        signalling systems, power supply tension) differ so that trains can require significant
        adaptation from one EEA country to another’.214 Competitors also indicate that to
        the extent that mainline trains differ from one EEA country to another, significant
        investments are required to adapt a train developed for operation in one Member
        State for operation in another.215
(201) Several customers also expressed the view that country-specific technical
        requirements still prevail. Deutsche Bahn explained that, ‘[w]hile the same platform
        may be used for the production of mainline trains used in different countries, there
        is, at this point in time, no product on the market which can be used in different
        countries in Europe without significant and expensive modifications. This is mainly
        due to differences regarding certification requirements, signalling and other
        infrastructure technologies (e.g. electric power supply)’.216 Alpha Trains, a large
        leasing company for passenger trains, indicates that ‘[s]ome manufacturers have
        products which they try to sell on different EEA (and Swiss) markets, however, quite
        often the incumbent operators have specific requirements for its country. […]
        France is extremely difficult for other manufacturers than Alstom and Bombardier
        who have shared the market […]’.217
(202) With regard to authorisation requirements, while many respondents indicate that
        TSIs have resulted in the authorisation requirements across the EEA for mainline
        trains to converge, the majority of respondents consider that significant differences
        from one country to another still remain (e.g., relating to infrastructure, gauge,
        envelope, signalling, power supply). A majority of customers thus consider that the
212 Q3, replies to question 21; Q4, replies to question 18.
213 Q3, replies to question 22.
214 CAF’s response to Q3, question 22.1.
215 Q3, replies to question 22.1.
216 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q4, question 18.1.
217 Alpha Trains’ response to to Q4, question 18.1.
                                                            38
 ---pagebreak---         adoption of EU-wide authorisation procedures have not yet created homogenous
        conditions for competition within the EEA.218
(203) In particular, with regard to France and Germany some respondents indicated
        country-specific technical and regulatory requirements as a factor limiting the
        number of credible competitors. As regards France, SNCF explains that ‘[t]he
        constraint of national requirements may generate technical discrepancies between
        the reference product of certain manufacturers and the specifications’.219 In SNCF’s
        view, the related adaptations maybe seen as too expensive or requiring engineering
        capabilities that cannot be mobilised. Alpha Trains also refers to these requirements
        as limiting the number of competitors in France.220
(204) As regards Germany, Deutsche Bahn similarly states that ‘[t]he complexity of the
        German national rules is one reason why it is difficult to purchase rolling stock
        especially from manufacturers in Asia, but also in Eastern Europe. More generally,
        the different national requirement are an obstacle to the development of standards in
        the industry. The lengthy homologation requirements in various European countries
        are often a challenge for new suppliers when entering the market’.221 Other
        customers having their operation in Germany (Flixtrain, Netinera, LNVG) also
        consider that suppliers have to comply with national standards and point out that
        homologation is difficult to achieve in Germany.222 Skoda expressed the view that
        some countries require a ‘specific approach, especially Germany and France are
        very specific in terms of vehicle homologation, and therefore competition may be
        limited’.223
(205) The bidding analysis confirms that the identity of bidders and the scope of
        competitive interactions vary from one EEA Member State to the other.224 Therefore,
        although a large number of suppliers are active in the EEA, they are not all active in
        the same Member States and the scope of their competitive interactions and mutual
        constraints is, consequently, limited. This is particularly true in France and
        Germany, where the Parties overlap and hold high combined market shares.
(206) In addition, with respect to France, the Commission considers that there are high
        barriers to entry for the following reasons.
(207) First, with regard to the need for local manufacturing presence, as a preliminary
        point, the Commission notes that EU procurement rules prohibit customers from
        disqualifying bidders that do not have local production assets.225 While customers
        cannot include explicit requirements in that regard, the requirement for local
        manufacturing presence appear to be a prerequisite for a bidder to win contracts in
        France.
218 Q4, replies to question 21.
219 SNCF’s response to to Q4, question 20.1.
220 Alpha Trains’ response to to Q4, question 20.1.
221 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q4, question 20.1.
222 Q4, replies to question 20.1.
223 Skoda’s response to Q3, question 24.1.
224 Parties’ CPL.
225 Articles 36.1, 60.2, and 60.4 of Directive 2014/25/EU of February 26, 2014 on procurement by entities
    operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC
    [2014] OJL 94/243.
                                                         39
 ---pagebreak--- (208) The Parties’ bidding data and market shares demonstrate that the only suppliers that
        won contracts in France in the period 2010-2018 are Alstom, Bombardier, and CAF.
        The Commission notes that all these suppliers have manufacturing facilities in
        France. As stated by the Notifying Party, CAF acquired a manufacturing site in
        Bagnères de Bigorre in France226 in 2008 and secured a contract with SNCF for 28
        intercity trains in 2019227. The Commission notes that it took CAF more than 10
        years after establishing manufacturing presence in France before it was able to win a
        tender against Alstom and Bombardier. This is despite previous bids submitted in
        this period as indicated in the Parties’ bidding data.228 No other supplier was able to
        enter the French market in the last 10 years. Furthermore, the number of suppliers
        that competed in tenders in France is also very limited. According to the Parties’
        bidding data, in addition to the Parties and CAF, only Stadler participated in a single
        tender held by the Hello Paris consortium in 2019 but the contract was ultimately
        awarded to Alstom in 2019 (with the Coradia Polyvalent platform). 229
(209) Therefore, the Commission considers that there is a strong correlation between being
        having manufacturing presence and the ability to win contracts in France, which
        raises high barriers to entry.
(210) Second, a supplier referred to the requirement for an existing track record in France
        to be eligible in tenders and win contracts.230 This requirements does not apply in
        other Member States where customers generally require commercial references from
        previously supplied mainline rolling stock in the EEA. The Commission also notes
        that complex tender requirements prevent smaller competitors from bidding in
        France, as evidenced by the absence of participation in tenders in France from other
        suppliers.231
(211) According to a respondent, complex homologation requirements also deter entry in
        France. Transdev expressed the view that ‘[i]n France, the Transaction is
        problematic because Alstom and Bombardier are the only market participants that
        have homologated rolling stock (heavy trains)’.232
(212) In addition, the Commission considers that the Parties’ large installed base and
        longstanding customer relationships in France entrench their established position and
        further raise barriers to entry. This is evidenced by the high proportion of repeat/non-
        contestable orders that were awarded to the Parties in the last 10 years in France (i.e.,
        nearly all repeat orders for which customers chose not to tender out their
        procurement were awarded to Alstom or Bombardier, see section 6.3.2.2, B.iii).
226 Form CO, Chapter B.2, footnote 205.
227 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 84.
228 Parties’ CPL.
229 Parties’ CPL.
230 Confidential minutes of conference call with Talgo, 14 April 2020, paragraph 8.
231 For example, Siemens lists a number of large scale, complex tenders in France that were awarded the
    Parties. These include SNCF’s 2017 tender won by the Parties in consortium. According to Siemens,
    SNCF rejected a lower-priced offer from CAF because of concerns that the Spanish company might not
    have the capacity needed for the project. Non-confidential submission of Siemens, 21 April 2020,
    paragraph 61.
232 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Transdev, 4 June 2020, paragraph 9.
                                                         40
 ---pagebreak--- (213) Similarly, with respect to Germany, the Commission considers that there are high
         barriers to entry for the following reasons.
(214) First, the lengthy and complex homologation process limits the number of credible
         competitors and raises barriers to entry. Most respondents to the market investigation
         having railway operations in Germany expressed the view that the homologation
         process limits the number of credible suppliers in Germany.233 Transdev explained
         that ‘[i]t is very difficult to obtain homologation in Germany (the process takes 2- 4
         years) due to the very high safety standards and the fact that these standards keep
         changing. Also because of these different homologation standards, a train in France
         would not be the same as a train in Germany (e.g. Stadler’s KISS or FLIRT
         platforms are different in both countries). Suppliers such as Skoda or Chinese
         companies have good trains but they are not homologated in Germany and
         France’.234
(215)     In view of the lengthy and complex homologation process, customers have a strong
         preference for a supplier that already has a homologated train in Germany. This is an
         important selection criterion for customers that seek to ensure that delivery times are
         respected. For example, according to Deutsche Bahn, [a]pproval management for
         rail vehicles, […], is a critical key factor in rail vehicle projects. In the past, a lack
         of experience with this official act was one of the reasons for delivery delays’.235
         Alpha Trains similarly stated that ‘[s]uch compliance generally reduces the
         homologation risk’.236 Flixtrain explained that ‘[a]nother important aspect to
         consider is that homologation is a significant barrier to enter the German market.
         Considering the time needed and the difficulty to obtain homologation in Germany,
         having a previously homologated train is an important advantage for a bidder’.237
         Flixtrain further explains that homologation is seen a risk factor for timely delivery
         in Germany.
(216) The Commission thus considers that the complex homologation process and the
         related risks linked with timely delivery and successful completion of the project
         deter entry from suppliers not already present with a homologated train.
(217) Second, there are very stringent financial and technical requirements for bidders in
         Germany. The main customer in Germany, Deutsche Bahn, sets very high financial
         criteria because suppliers have to bear the costs of development and adaptations of
         platforms during the homologation process and until full project delivery. Deutsche
         Bahn explained that it ‘purchases homologated trains, and payment of the purchase
         price depends on the delivery of a fully-functional train. This means that up to that
         point operators need to finance the whole project and the ability to pre-finance the
         project has to be demonstrated in tenders’238. Smaller customers such as Flixtrain
         also explained that technical and financial capabilities are one of the main […]
         selection criteria’.239
233 Q4, replies to question 20.1 and 26.1.
234 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Transdev, 23 June 2020, paragraph 8.
235 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q4, question 26.1.1.
236 Alpha Trains’ response to Q4, question 26.6.1.
237 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Flixtrain,
238 Non-confidential minutes of call with Deutsche Bahn, 14 April 2020, paragraph 7.
239 Flixtrain’s response to Q4, question 26.3.1.
                                                         41
 ---pagebreak--- (218) The Commission considers that such stringent technical and financial requirements
        to participate and win contracts in Germany deter entry from smaller suppliers not
        already having a homologated platform in operation and not being able to bear the
        financial cost of the investment required for the duration of the homologation
        process (up to 4 years). Such suppliers are effectively excluded from tenders in
        Germany.
(219) Skoda explained that it succeeded in winning a single contract with Deutsche Bahn
        for locomotive-hauled intercity trains in 2014. However, Skoda also stated that
        ‘[a]lthough it is usually very hard for a medium-sized supplier like Skoda to sell
        rolling stock in Germany (due to German homologation requirements and herewith
        connected need for pre-development), for this tender Deutsche Bahn set out specific
        customisation requirements and quantity, so that only a limited number of suppliers
        were interested to participate. Skoda considers that the special conditions of this
        tender allowed Skoda to enter the German market’.240
(220) In the Commission’s view, this indicates that suppliers such as Skoda can only win
        contracts in Germany under specific circumstances and when such projects do not
        attract interest from established players with homologated platforms in Germany that
        are able to comply with the high financial requirements imposed by customers. The
        single contract won by Skoda (for locomotive-hauled trains) and the fact that Skoda
        was not able to expand its activities after winning this contract therefore reinforces
        the conclusion that there are high barriers to entry and expansion in Germany.
(221) Third, while a number of competitors participated in tenders in Germany, including
        the Parties, Stadler, Siemens, Hitachi, CAF, Pesa, Skoda, the suppliers that won
        contracts are indeed only the Parties, Siemens and Stadler.241 Both competitors have
        established manufacturing facilities in Germany. Siemens is a long-standing player
        in the German market which increased its activities in mainline rolling stock in
        recent years. Stadler was the remedy taker in Bombardier/ADTranz, which also
        included the transfer of ADtranz’ Berlin Pankow manufacturing facility in
        Germany.242 No supplier (except for Skoda) was able to enter the German market for
        regional trains without having local manufacturing facilities.243 Skoda won only one
        small contract in Germany (for locomotive-hauled intercity trains) and due to the
        very specific circumstances of the tender and the absence of interest of established
        players. The Commission thus considers that also in Germany there is a strong
        correlation between having local manufacturing presence and the ability to win
        contracts.
(222) Fourth, similarly to France, the Parties’ large installed base and longstanding
        customer relationships in Germany further raise barriers to entry. Nearly all repeat
        orders in Germany in the last 10 years were awarded to Alstom and Bombardier (see
        section 6.3.2.2, B.iii).
240 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Skoda, 6 May 2020, paragraph 4.
241 The Commission notes that Skoda secured a single contract for intercity trains in 2014 but, as explained,
    due to the specific conditions of the tender which generated only limited interest.
242 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Stadler, 20 March 2020, Annex – Stadler’s response to
    RFI 151.
243 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Skoda, 6 May 2020, paragraph 4.
                                                          42
 ---pagebreak--- (223) Therefore, the Commission considers that the market for mainline rolling stock (and
         possible segmentations) is most likely national in scope. For the purpose of this
         decision, the Commission will carry out its competitive assessment at both an EEA-
         wide level, including Switzerland, and at national level.
           5.2.2.4. Metros
         (A)       The Notifying Party's views
(224) The Notifying Party considers that the metro market has evolved significantly
         towards an at least EEA-wide market.
(225) First, the Notifying Party states that suppliers participate in tenders across the EEA.
         While rolling stock players may have different geographic focuses based on their
         respective commercial strategies, all major metro suppliers are active in tenders
         outside of their historic home base.244
(226) Second, the Notifying Party considers that difference in technical specifications are
         limited and driven at project-level. In contrast with high-speed and mainline trains,
         there are no platform-level authorizations for metros at European or national level.
         Authorizations are instead given for a specific project due to the differing
         infrastructure of projects, even those within the same country and sometimes even
         within the same city. As a result, the ‘technical’ variations are generally driven by
         project-specific requirements and not national standards. In any event suppliers can
         easily overcome the project-level technical variances by making minor adjustments
         to their existing EEA-level platforms. Suppliers design their platforms taking into
         considerations variances across different countries and customers. As a result, the
         resulting platform has a broad spectrum of applications.
(227) In any event, the Notifying Party considers that the exact market definition can be
         left open as the Transaction does not raise competitive concerns regardless of the
         exact geographic market.
         (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(228) In the previous decision, the Commission considered that the geographic market for
         metros should be national in scope.245 This conclusion was mainly based on the fact
         that, despite the EU procurement rules and standardisation trends, in countries in
         which there is a strong national rail industry (Germany was used as an example),
         orders for rail vehicles had almost exclusively gone to national suppliers and only
         very few ‘truly foreign suppliers’ had bid for the tenders. Moreover, the diversity of
         infrastructural requirements among different Member States was considered a major
         obstacle to EEA harmonisation.
244 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 38. For instance, in the past 10 years, Siemens won projects in Austria,
    Bulgaria, France, Poland and the United Kingdom in addition to Germany, and received repeat orders in
    Italy and Norway. Similarly, CAF won projects in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania,
    Spain, and the United Kingdom. Stadler won projects in Germany and the United Kingdom and Newag
    won projects in Bulgaria and Poland.
245 Commission decision of 3 April 2001 in case M.2139 - Bombardier/ADtranz, at paras. 14 and 23.
                                                       43
 ---pagebreak--- (229) In its subsequent decision in Metronet/Infraco, the Commission left the question
        open of a possible delineation of the market for the supply of metros at national or
        EU level.246
        (C)         Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(230) The results of the market investigation show that respondents consider that the
        relevant geographic market for metros is at least EEA-wide (including Switzerland)
        due to similar customer and homologation requirements, which allow suppliers to
        compete at European level.247 The presence of similar suppliers within the EEA is
        further confirmed by a majority of competitors, which indicated that the set of
        competitors that they face does not differ between the different EEA Member States
        but vary significantly for tenders in or outside the EEA.248 Moreover, some
        customers, all located in the EEA, confirm that European suppliers (or European
        branches of global suppliers) typically participate in their tenders.249
(231) These results are supported by the bidding data provided by the Parties, which
        indicate that most of the metro suppliers typically bid in various Member States
        across the EEA. For instance, over the past 10 years, CAF bid in […] different
        Member States in steel wheel metro tenders, Siemens […] or Alstom […], while
        tenders have been issued in 15 different Member States.
(232) Some respondents to the market investigation consider that the market for metro is
        global in scope. They explain that metro suppliers are able to bid on a global scale,
        due to similar metro systems. For instance, a component supplier (Knorr Bremse)
        indicated that ‘Metro systems originate in Europa and the system has been brought
        to a worldwide application from there. Metro systems are similar, thus carbuilders
        usually operate with worldwide platforms where possible, only distinguishing
        carbody shells where legacy infrastructure are demanded (e.g. London, Berlin,
        Paris).’
(233) However, the Commission notes that non-European suppliers of metros which may
        be successful outside the EEA are not active in the EEA. In that regard, no non-
        European suppliers250 have been successful in winning metro tenders in the EEA in
        the past 10 years. In addition, bids stemming from non-European suppliers in metro
        tenders remain erratic.251
(234) Finally, some competitors further explain that some national manufacturers may
        have a stronger position in their domestic countries, which may make it more
        difficult to foreign suppliers to enter these national markets. 252 However, for a large
        majority of respondents, this does not constitutes a sufficient barrier to enter to
        consider a national geographic market in scope. Indeed, no customer consider that
        the market for metros is national in scope, while only a minority of competitors
        support this view and indicated that the competition conditions for metros should be
246 Commission Decision in Case M.2694 - Metronet/Infraco (2002), recital 34.
247 Q8, replies to question 26.1.; Q9, replies to question 27.1.
248 Q8, replies to question 27.1 and 27.2.
249 Q9, replies to question 27.1.
250 Except Hitachi.
251 For instance, CRRC bid in […] tenders over the past 10 years.
252 Q8, replies to question 26.1.
                                                            44
 ---pagebreak---         assessed at national level (depending on the responses, on a standalone basis or in
        parallel with a wider scope, either EEA-wide or globally).253
(235) It follows from the above that, for the purpose of this decision, the geographic
        market for metros is EEA-wide (including Switzerland) in scope.
          5.2.2.5. Trams/LRVs
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s views
(236) The Parties consider that the relevant geographic market for trams/LRVs is at least
        EEA-wide.
(237) First, the Notifying Party states that tram/LRV suppliers compete in tenders across
        the EEA. For instance, Spanish player CAF has been recently awarded projects in
        Norway, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Belgium and Portugal,
        in addition to its Spanish contracts. Even smaller players like Pesa are increasingly
        active across the EEA.254
(238) Second, the Notifying Party considers that trams/LRVs are more standardised than
        other rolling stock. Trams/LRVs are low capacity solutions that are typically ordered
        more frequently, and in lower quantities per tender than other rolling stock.
        According to the Notifying Party, customers aim to avoid high production costs with
        relatively standardised technical requirements, design and product specification
        requirements, which allow suppliers to offer standard models in various Member
        States with limited adapted costs. In addition, the increased level of harmonisation of
        technical requirements has also facilitated the entry of non-European, and especially
        Asian suppliers, such as Hyundai Rotem or CRRC.255
        (B)         The Commission’s decisional practice
(239) The Commission previously considered that the market for trams/LRVs is national
        in scope.256 In its decision in case Alstom Transport SA/FSI/Translohr, it noted that
        the market could be wider in scope (EEA) but ultimately left the precise geographic
        market definition open.257
        (C)         Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(240) The results of the market investigation indicate that the geographic market for
        trams/LRVs is at least EEA-wide (including Switzerland).
(241) In that regard, almost all respondents consider that the market for trams/LRVs
        include at least the EEA and Switzerland. Among the respondents, while customers
        consider that the market is EEA-wide,258 including Switzerland,259 a majority of
253 Q8, replies to question 6.1.; Q9, replies to question 27.1.
254 Pesa won a 2019 contract in Bulgaria and a 2020 contract in Romania.
255 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 130-131.
256 Commission Decision in Case M.2139 – Bombardier/ADTranz (2001), paragraph 23.
257 Commission decision in case M. 6646 – Alstom Transport SA/FSI/Translohr, paragraph 26.
258 Siemens and CAF did not express explicit view in that matter.
259 Q9, replies to question 30.
                                                            45
 ---pagebreak---         competitors consider that the market for trams/LRVs is worldwide in scope.260 No
        respondents, except CRRC, consider that the market for trams/LRVs is national in
        scope.
(242) In that regard, a majority of customers indicated that there is no national technical
        specifications and regulatory requirements that would limit the number of viable
        suppliers of trams/LRVs in their home country.261 While some respondents indicate
        that national specificities in the regulatory requirements persist between the Member
        States, customers mainly consider that those should not be considered as barriers to
        enter a national market. For instance, one customer (Blackpool Council) stated that
        ‘Tram manufacturers are well aware of the differences in regulatory requirements in
        each country and whilst in the past this may have limited the number of suppliers,
        the situation appears to have changed.’262 Another customer (RATP) indicated that
        tender specifications consisted in functional requirements and allowed for flexible
        solution, on the basis of standardized European platforms263
(243) Several respondents (both customers and competitors) explained that trams/LRVs
        are relatively standardised products which are tailored following the specific
        technical specifications and requirements expressed by each customer, according to
        its needs and demand, regardless of the Member State where the vehicles are
        operated.264
(244) In addition, responses expressed by the customers in the market investigation are
        indicative of relatively homogenous competitive conditions in the market for
        trams/LRVs within the EEA. During the market investigation, the Commission
        interrogated various customers located in the EEA which generally identified the
        same EEA-based suppliers as credible bidders for the provision of trams/LRVs, such
        as Alstom, CAF, Siemens, Bombardier, Skoda or Pesa.265 In addition, a majority of
        competitors indicated that they face a different set of competitors in tenders in the
        EEA and outside the EEA.266
(245) These results are supported by the bidding data provided by the Parties, which
        indicate that most of the metro suppliers typically bid in various Member States
        across the EEA. For instance, over the past 10 years, CAF bid in […] different
        Member States in tram/LRV tenders, Stadler […] or Skoda […], while tenders have
        been issued in 25 different Member States.267
(246) Other respondents consider that trams/LRVs systems are similar around the world,
        thus allowing manufacturers to usually operate with worldwide platforms, only
        distinguishing bogies where demanded by legacy infrastructure. For instance, a
        customer (Blackpool Council) indicated that ‘Tram systems operate in most major
        cities around the world. Whilst they are most prominent in Europe, they do operate
        in parts of Africa, USA, Australia, New Zealand, South America, Canada, China and
260 Q8, replies to question 30.
261 Q9, replies to question 33.
262 Q9, reply form Blackpool Council to question 33.1.
263 Q9, reply from RATP to question 33.1.
264 Q8, replies to questions 31 and 31.1.; Q9, replies to question 32 and 32.1.
265 Q9, replies to question 31.
266 Q8, replies to question 32.1.
267 CPL (Consolidated Projects List) provided by the Notifying Party.
                                                           46
 ---pagebreak---         Russia.’ In addition, some customers further retained a worldwide dimension based
        on the fact that CRRC has taken part in a procurement of trams/LRVs conducted
        within the last 5 years in the EEA.268
(247) However, the Commission notes that non-European suppliers of trams/LRVs remain
        poorly active in the EEA. In that regard, bids and win in trams/LRVs projects from
        non-European suppliers’ have remained very limited in the EEA in the past 10 years.
        Out of more than 180 contestable projects in the EEA (including Switzerland), one
        non-European supplier was present in around 5% of all tenders only, mostly in
        Member States close to their domestic country.269
(248) In light of the results of the market investigation, the Commission considers that, for
        the purpose of the present case, the relevant market for trams/LRVs is EEA-wide
        and includes Switzerland.
          5.2.2.6. Locomotives
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s views
(249) The Notifying Party submits that the market for locomotives is at least EEA-wide.
        Referring to the findings of the Commission in Knorr Bremse/Vossloh, the Notifying
        Party submits that all major suppliers are active across the EEA and customers tend
        to source locomotives on an EEA-wide basis.270
        (B)         The Commission’s decisional practice
(250) In ABB/Daimler Benz, the Commission found that the markets for electric and diesel
        locomotives are national in scope in the case of Member States which have their own
        strong rail vehicle industry.271 In Siemens/VA Tech, the Commission made a similar
        finding with respect to electric locomotives.272 In a more recent decision, in Knorr
        Bremse/Vossloh, the Commission found that manufacturers could supply rail
        vehicles, including locomotives, throughout the EEA, and the majority of rail
        operators sourced them rail vehicles on an EEA-wide basis. However, the
        Commission left ultimately the precise geographic market definition open.273
        (C)         Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(251) The results of the market investigation are mixed regarding the geographic market
        definition.
(252) Competitors expressed mixed views as to whether the markets for shunting and
        mainline locomotives are EEA-wide, including Switzerland, in scope, while others
        (Siemens) considering that the supply of locomotives has both national and EEA-
        wide elements.274 They notably indicated that the same competitors supply
268 Q9, replies to question 30.1.
269 For instance, the Turkish companies Durmazlar and Bozankaya bid and won in Romania exclusively. The
    Russian company Ust Katav bid and won in Latvia.
270 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 24.
271 Commission decision in Case IV/M.580 – ABB/Daimler Benz (1995), recital 41.
272 Commission decision in Case M.3653 – Siemens/VA Tech (2005), recital 118.
273 Commission decision in Case M.7358 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh (2015), recital 65.
274 Q3, replies to questions 28 and 28.1.
                                                      47
 ---pagebreak---          locomotives across the EEA and that suppliers compete with the same locomotives
         in different countries.275
(253) The majority of customers indicated that the market for locomotives is EEA-wide.276
         This is due to national specification and regulatory requirements that do not seem to
         restrict the number of viable suppliers of locomotives in their home country.
         Customers also explained that locomotives (both mainline and shunting) are more
         standardised that self-propelled trains and are thus less dependent on country-
         specific requirements.277
(254) However, for the purpose of this decision, the Commission considers that the precise
         geographic market definition for locomotives can be left open as the Transaction will
         not give rise to competition concerns under any alternative market definition.278
           5.2.2.7. Maintenance and refurbishment
         (A)        The Notifying Party’s views
(255) The Notifying Party considers that the market for rolling stock maintenance and
         refurbishment is at least EEA-wide, if not worldwide, in view of the following
         factors: (i) most players are active across the EEA as well as outside the EEA, (ii)
         maintenance and refurbishment set-ups are standardised with depots having
         comparable equipment and skills-set, irrespective of their location, (iii) maintenance
         and refurbishment operations are often provided across national borders with
         vehicles shipped to service providers.279
         (B)        The Commission’s decisional practice
(256) In previous decisions, the Commission defined the markets for maintenance and
         refurbishment services as national.280
275 Q3, replies to questions 28.1.
276 Q4, replies to question 22.
277 Q4, replies to question 22.1.
278 Based on the Notifying Party’s submission and the results of the market investigation, the Parties’
    activities do not overlap as Alstom is only active in shunting locomotives (including through TMH in
    which Alstom holds a […]% stake, see footnote 558), while Bombardier is only active in mainline
    locomotives. Based on the Notifying Party’s submission, Alstom does not have any mainline locomotive
    platform that would allow it to re-enter in a timely fashion without incurring significant investment costs
    and it has no immediate plans to do so. Similarly, the Notifying Party explains that Bombardier does not
    supply shunting locomotives, nor does it plan to do so. See Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 10-18. The
    results of the market investigation also confirmed that the Parties’ activities as regards locomotives are
    different, with Alstom suppling shunting locomotives and Bombardier mainline locomotives. As Siemens
    explains ‘Alstom is not or only to a small extent active in locomotives. To Siemens’ knowledge, they only
    supply shunting locomotives’. Similarly, Siemens explains that both Bombardier and Siemens supply
    mainline locomotives. See Q3, replies to questions 81, 81.1, 82 and 82.1. Therefore, due to the absence of
    an overlap between the Parties’ activities in locomotives, the Commission will not further assess in this
    decision the effects of the Transaction in the markets for shunting and mainline locomotives at the EEA-
    wide or national level.
279 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 116.
280 Commission Decision in Case M.2139 – Bombardier/ADTranz (2001), recital 22; Commission Decision
    in Case M.7871 – Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK (2016), recital 25.
                                                           48
 ---pagebreak---          (C)        Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(257) The results of the market investigation generally confirm the Commission's
         decisional practice on the geographic market definition. The majority of participants
         to the market investigation indicated that markets for maintenance and refurbishment
         services are likely national.281 Several respondents indicated that they procure
         maintenance services from suppliers that have local presence in the country of
         operation.282
(258) In any event, the exact geographic scope of the markets for maintenance and
         refurbishment services can be left open as the Transaction does not raise serious
         doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market under any alternative market
         definition, i.e., EEA-wide or national.
           5.2.2.8. Components and spare parts
         (A)        The Notifying Party’s views
(259) The Notifying Party submits that the market for components can be considered EEA-
         wide. The Notifying Party explains that there are different sales practices between
         the EEA (where customers organise tenders for complete trainsets and rarely source
         standalone components) and non-EEA markets (where there is a significant demand
         for standalone sales of components).283
(260) The Notifying Party submits the market for spare parts is at least EEA-wide because
         spare parts can be shipped among Member States, if not beyond.284
(261) However, the Notifying Party considers that the geographic markets for components
         and spare parts can be left open as the Parties’ EEA activities do not overlap and the
         Transaction will not give rise to competition concerns in components or spare parts
         in the EEA.285
         (B)        Commission's decisional practice
(262) In past decisions, the Commission found the market for components to be EEA-
         wide.
(263) In Knorr Bremse/Vossloh, the Commission found that the geographic market for
         HVAC systems, friction/service brake systems and door systems were likely to be
         EEA-wide, but left the exact geographic market definition open.286
(264) In Wabtec/Faiveley, the Commission found that the geographic markets for doors,
         pneumatic friction brake systems and sub-systems, friction materials (both OEM and
281 Q1, replies to question 16; Q2, replies to question 16; Q3, replies to question 29.1.1; Q4, replies to
    question 23.1; Q8, question 35.1; Q9, question 34.1.
282 Q2, replies to question 17; Q9, replies to question 37.
283 The Notifying Party provides the example of Alstom which did not sell any traction and motor component
    in the EEA in the last three years and reported annual sales of more than EUR […] in non-EEA countries.
    See Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 67.
284 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 69.
285 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 68 and 70.
286 Commission Decision in Case M.7538 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh (2015), recitals 43, 51 and 58.
                                                            49
 ---pagebreak---         IAM) and brake discs (both OEM and IAM) were EEA-wide.287 The Commission
        found the geographic market for pantographs was at least EEA-wide.288 The
        Commission left the geographic market definitions for energy meters, event
        recorders open.289
        (C)        The Commission’s assessment
(265) The results of the market investigation confirm the existence of EEA-wide markets
        for components and spare parts.290 Respondents point out certain differences
        between procurement patterns and regulation as regards the supply of components in
        the EEA and outside the EEA but generally consider that competitive conditions are
        homogenous in the EEA.291
(266) Therefore, for the purpose of this decision, the Commission considers that the scope
        of the markets for each type of components and for spare parts is EEA-wide,
        including Switzerland.
6.      COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT – ROLLING STOCK
6.1.    Framework for the competitive assessment
6.1.1. General principles
(267) Under Article 2(2) and (3) of the Merger Regulation, the Commission must assess
        whether a proposed concentration would significantly impede effective competition
        in the internal market or in a substantial part of it, in particular through the creation
        or strengthening of a dominant position.
(268) In this respect, a merger may entail horizontal and/or non-horizontal effects. Non-
        horizontal effects are those deriving from a concentration where the undertakings
        concerned are active in different relevant markets.
(269) As regards the assessment of horizontal overlaps, the Commission guidelines on the
        assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
        concentrations between undertakings292 (the ‘Horizontal Merger Guidelines’)
        distinguish between two main ways in which mergers between actual or potential
        competitors on the same relevant market may significantly impede effective
        competition, namely non-coordinated and coordinated effects. Non-coordinated
        effects may significantly impede effective competition by eliminating important
        competitive constraints on one or more firms, which consequently would have
        increased market power, without resorting to coordinated behaviour. In that regard,
        the Horizontal Merger Guidelines consider not only the direct loss of competition
287 Commission Decision in Case M.7801 – Wabtec/Faiveley (2016), recitals 79, 105, 241 and 393.
288 Commission Decision in Case M.7801 – Wabtec/Faiveley (2016), recital 420.
289 Commission Decision in Case M.7801 – Wabtec/Faiveley (2016), recitals 38 and 61.
290 Q1, question 18; Q2, question 18; Q3, replies to question 30; Q4, replies to question 24; Q8, question 36;
    Q9, question 36 ; Q10, replies to question 9.
291 Q10, replies to question 9.1.
292 Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings (OJ C 31, 05.02.2004, pages 5-18), in particular paragraphs 4 and
    22.
                                                         50
 ---pagebreak---         between the merging firms, but also the reduction in competitive pressure on non-
        merging firms in the same market that could be brought about by the merger.
(270) The Horizontal Merger Guidelines list a number of factors which may influence
        whether or not significant non-coordinated effects are likely to result from a merger,
        such as the large market shares of the merging firms, the fact that the merging firms
        are close competitors, the limited possibilities for customers to switch suppliers, or
        the fact that the merger would eliminate an important competitive force. Not all of
        these factors indicated in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines as relevant to the
        analysis of non-coordinated effects need to be present to make significant non-
        coordinated effects likely. Also, the list of factors is not exhaustive.
(271) The extent of closeness of competition between the merging parties is one of the
        factors relevant for the analysis of the likelihood of significant non-coordinated
        effects of a merger.293 The Commission is not required to show that the merging
        parties are each other’s closest competitors to find that significant non-coordinated
        effects are likely to arise from a merger.294 The Horizontal Merger Guidelines clearly
        provide for a relative approach to the relevance of closeness of competition.
        According to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, ‘the higher the degree of
        substitutability between the merging firms' products, the more likely it is that the
        merging firms will raise prices significantly.’295
(272) The same concept is set out in paragraph 17 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines,
        according to which a merger may raise competition concerns based on ‘the extent to
        which the products of the merging parties are close substitutes’. Both wordings set
        out a correlation between the degree of substitutability of the products of the
        merging parties and the likelihood and seriousness of competition concerns raised by
        the proposed merger.
(273) It follows that if the merging parties’ products are each other's closest substitutes, the
        competition concerns may be particularly strong. However, a merger between firms
        producing close, but not necessarily the closest substitutes also makes price increases
        more likely than a merger between firms producing products with a low degree of
        substitutability.
6.1.2. Calculation of market shares and bidding data
(274) In prior cases involving industries where orders are infrequent, the Commission has
        considered that market shares should be analysed over several years.296 At the same
        time, as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, ‘changes in
        historic market shares may provide useful information about the competitive process
293 Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings, paragraphs 26 and 28-30.
294 See, e.g., Commission decision in Case M.7962 – ChemChina/Syngenta (2017), recital 182; Commission
    decision in Case M.7612 – Hutchison 3G UK/Telefonica UK (2017), recital 324; Commission decision in
    Case M.6992 – Telefonica Deutschland/E-Plus (2014), recitals 278-280.
295 Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings, paragraph 28.
296 See Commission decision in Case M.7278 – GE/Alstom (2015), Annex 1 - The Commission's Economic
    Analysis of Bidding Data, recital 189, page 55; Commission decision in Case M.3653 – Siemens/VA Tech
    (2005), recital 141.
                                                        51
 ---pagebreak---         and the likely future importance of the various competitors, for instance by
        indicating whether firms have been gaining or losing market shares’.
(275) In the present case, in order to address these two issues, the Parties and their
        competitors' market shares have been examined over a period of 10 years (2010-
        2019) period.297 This both limits the distorting impact of infrequent tendering for
        projects and enables the analysis of historical changes or permanence of competitive
        positions over a meaningful period of time.
(276) The Notifying Party argues that historical market shares are not determinative for the
        competitive assessment because the size and infrequency of rolling stock projects
        distort historical market shares. It considers that calculating market shares on the
        basis of sales over the past 10 years overstates the Parties’ position and ignores
        recent developments more predictive of post-merger market dynamics. Among these
        recent developments, the Notifying Party claims that the Parties’ market share in
        high and very high-speed trains has diminished and the competitors’ position, most
        notably Stadler’s, has increased.298 It also observes that tender participation has
        increased in the past few years.299 Similarly, in mainline rolling stock, the Notifying
        Party argues that, both EEA-wide and in certain countries, Bombardier’s competitive
        position decreased in recent years while new competitors have emerged and won
        contracts. The Notifying Party therefore argues that the time period of the
        assessment of market shares should be shorter and focus on the last 5 years in order
        to reflect the more recent development of competition in high and very high-speed
        rolling stock.
(277) However, the Commission’s assessment in the present case cannot be determined by
        market shares and bidding analysis conducted over the most recent 5 years period, as
        this would raise significant methodological issues. The Notifying Party’s suggested
        approach would rely on quantitative analysis of a limited number of tenders and
        would, therefore, give disproportionate weight to recent contract awards or losses,
        without regard to the position of players with less recent awards, but no less weight
        as competitors in contemporaneous tenders. This is all the more problematic that
        rolling stock are characterized by long life cycles (spanning 30-40 years) and the
        procurement of major customers is also cyclical. As a result, limiting the competitive
        assessment to the past 5 years would ignore large portions of the market’s main
        customers’ procurement and the main suppliers’ position. This would risk leading to
        insufficiently representative results.
(278) Furthermore, the Parties' and their competitors' positions, as well as the extent of
        rivalry between different suppliers and the loss of competition caused by the
        Transaction will also be assessed using data on tenders and bidding provided by the
        Notifying Party.
297 The review of the present Transaction spanned over 2018. In order to conduct its assessment using the
    most up-to-date data, reflecting the most recent market dynamics, the Commission used market share and
    bidding data covering 2018 in addition to the prior 10 years.
298 Notifying Party’s Response to the Article 6(1)(c) Decision, High Speed Rolling Stock, paragraphs 103-
    109.
299 Notifying Party’s Response to the Article 6(1)(c) Decision, High Speed Rolling Stock, paragraphs 110-
    123.
                                                          52
 ---pagebreak--- (279) The Notifying Party provided a Consolidated Project List (‘CPL’) that consists of a
         comprehensive list of tender procedures that took place, to the best of the Parties'
         knowledge, over the period 2010-2019. The CPL includes both tenders in which
         either Alstom or Bombardier participated, as well as the tenders in which neither
         participated. It provides details of the different tenders, lists other bidders and
         winners. In the case of awards to consortia, it allocated the related order intakes to
         the different consortia members.
(280) The Commission performed its bidding analysis on the basis of so-called
         ‘contestable’ (competitive) tenders. The information regarding the contestability
         status of each tender was provided by the Notifying Party. The Notifying Party
         defined a tender as contestable if, to the best of its knowledge, the procedure was
         open to competition300. Other awards were designated as ‘non-contestable’ and,
         unless indicated otherwise, were not used for the bidding analysis301.
6.2.     Very High-Speed trains
(281) The Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise concerns with respect
         to the overall market for high-speed rolling stock (comprising all trains capable of
         speed equal to or above 250 km/h). The Parties’ combined market shares in the
         overall market for high-speed rolling stock are markedly lower ([30-40]% worldwide
         and [40-50]% EEA-wide) than in the market for very high-speed rolling stock.302 On
         the overall market for high-speed rolling stock, Siemens, holds a market share
         comparable to that merged entity’s ([30-40]% worldwide and [30-40]% EEA-wide).
         Additionally, several competitors such as Stadler ([5-10]% EEA, [0-5]% worldwide)
         and Talgo ([0-5]% EEA, [5-10]% worldwide) remain. Finally, the investigation
         shows that the loss of competition resulting from the Transaction stems from its
         impact in very high-speed rolling stock.
(282) Therefore, the competitive assessment addresses the market with respect of which
         the Transaction raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market,
         namely the market for very high-speed rolling stock (trains capable of speed equal to
         or above 300 km/h), at EEA and worldwide level.
6.2.1. The Parties’ activities
(283) Alstom and Bombardier are both active in the supply of very high-speed rolling
         stock. Bombardier has not sold any high-speed platforms in the past 10 years in the
         EEA and at global level.
           6.2.1.1. Alstom’s activities
(284) Alstom’s very high-speed rolling stock portfolio includes several very high-speed
         platforms.
300 The term ‘contestable’ as used in the CPL relates to tenders formally open to competition.
301 Non-contestable tenders under the CPL are usually for repeat orders of rolling stock already supplied by a
    certain manufacturer in execution of a prior contract.
302 As explained below, the Parties’ activities do not overlap in the market for high-speed rolling stock (trains
    capable of speed between 250 and 300 km/h).
                                                           53
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---            6.2.1.2. Bombardier’s activities
(290) Bombardier is active in very high-speed rolling stock where it operates through
         several consortia307 with other suppliers.308 Outside China, Bombardier’s very high-
         speed train offering consists of the Zefiro V300, a very high-speed solution with a
         maximum speed of 360 km/h (operating at 300 km/h), which was jointly developed
         and produced with AnsaldoBreda (now Hitachi).309
(291) In 2010, the consortium Hitachi/Bombardier was awarded a contract with Trenitalia.
         Trenitalia places a repeat order for additional rolling stock in 2019310 and two
         options for services in 2014 and 2017. In addition, the consortium
         Hitachi/Bombardier expects to be awarded a very high-speed project in Spain for the
         supply of 21 Zefiro V300 trainsets and 30 years maintenance to Intermodalidad de
         Levante, S.A. (‘ILSA’)/Trenitalia. Bombardier and Hitachi expect to sign the
         contract in 2020.311
(292) With respect to the Trenitalia contract, the rolling stock scope of the 2010 order has
         been delivered in its entirety. The outstanding work relates to maintenance and
         certain deliverables in terms of rolling stock performance. The rolling stock and
         maintenance scope of the 2019 repeat order [Confidential information on
         Bombardier’s contract with Hitachi and Trenitalia]. The split of work for both the
         2010 and 2019 Trenitalia orders and for the 2017 retrofit is c. […]% for Hitachi and
         c. […]% for Bombardier.
(293) In China, Bombardier offers the very high-speed platform CRH380 through a joint
         venture controlled by CRRC.312
6.2.2. Market shares
(294) The Parties combined position in the very high-speed rolling stock market is
         indicated in the following table.313
307 Bombardier has bid on a standalone basis but has not won any very high-speed tender in the past 10 years
    in the EEA and outside the EEA.
308 The Parties’ activities strictly overlap in very high-speed rolling stock market only (and not in the high-
    speed rolling stock market, comprising trains capable of speed between 250 km/h and 299 km/h, since
    Bombardier did not bid in any high-speed rolling stock tender in the past 10 years).
309 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 65. The cooperation between Bombardier and Hitachi takes the form of
    a temporary association of enterprises (Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 72).
310 The 2010 Trenitalia order and the 2019 option for 14 additional trainsets each include a 10-year
    maintenance period starting from the delivery of the first train (extendable by 5 year periods).
311 Both Trenitalia and ILSA contracts include services: […] year maintenance and a […]-year extension
    option under the 2010 contract and […]-year maintenance under the 2019 repeat order (Form CO, Chapter
    B.1, paragraph 74)
312 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 172. In addition, the consortium CRRC/Bombardier operates a high-
    speed platform in China, the CRH1 (maximum speed of 250 km/h).
313 Market shares for consortia (including the consortium between Bombardier and Hitachi for the provision
    of the Zefiro V300) are attributed to the consortia members according to their respective share in the
    overall rolling stock contract. For projects in which suppliers acted as sub-suppliers to the contract winner,
    market shares are solely attributed to the respective prime contractor.
                                                            55
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (298) The Notifying Party states that the joint bid with Hitachi in the context of the
       ongoing HS2 tender in the UK further illustrates that Bombardier depends on
       cooperation with other suppliers to submit competitive bids for very high-speed
       projects. Despite having pre-qualified on a stand-alone basis, Bombardier and
       Hitachi submitted a joint bid on 5 June 2019. The Notifying Party explains that
       Bombardier decided to enter into a consortium agreement primarily because its track
       record in very high-speed in the past 10 years strictly relies on its consortium with
       Hitachi.317
(299) In addition, the Notifying Party states that Bombardier’s share, which was [10-20]%
       in the past 10 years in the EEA, dropped to only [0-5]% in the past five years and
       relates solely to the 2010 Trenitalia order for the jointly developed Zefiro V300 and
       a non-contestable follow-on order in 2019.318
(300) Finally, considering that Bombardier’s presence in the market for very high-speed
       rolling stock relates to its consortium with Hitachi, the Notifying Party states that the
       market share increment in the very high-speed market is limited and therefore will
       not lead to any impediment of competition.319 According to the Notifying Party, an
       assessment of the Transaction on the basis of the sole contestable tenders would
       further confirm its limited impact on the structure of the market.320
       (B)       The Commission’s assessment
       (B.i)     Market shares and structural impact
(301) The Commission notes that, as set out in table 2 above, the Transaction, combining
       Alstom’s and Bombardier’s competitive position, would lead to very high market
       share for the merged entity in the market for very high-speed rolling stock at EEA
       and worldwide level.
(302) After the Transaction, the merged entity would represent [60-70]% of the very high-
       speed rolling stock market at EEA level (Alstom [50-60]%, Bombardier [10-20]%)
       and [50-60]% at global level (Alstom [40-50]%, Bombardier [5-10]%). Under
       paragraph 17 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, the merging parties’ very large
       market shares constitute evidence consistent with the existence of a dominant market
       position.
(303) The main remaining competitor in the market for very high speed rolling stock
       would be Siemens, whose size will be about 1/6th of the new entity at EEA level and
       1/5th at global level. In addition, besides Hitachi, whose competitive position will be
       further analysed below, Talgo will also be active but would represent a very modest
       share of the market ([5-10]%). The situation is comparable on the worldwide market,
       where the merged entity’s market share will be 4 times higher than the second
       supplier, Talgo. Other competitors (CRRC, Japanese suppliers) have very limited
       sales outside of their domestic markets.321.
317 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraphs 82-83.
318 Form CO, Chapter B.1., paragraph 217.
319 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 123.
320 Form CO, Chapter B.1., paragraph 120.
321 CRRC currently has no very high-speed trains in operation outside of China.
                                                        57
 ---pagebreak--- (304) As concerns Alstom’s position, the Commission consider that, contrary to the
         Notifying Party’s view, the calculation of Alstom’s market share should include its
         ‘TGV du Futur’ sales to SNCF.322 In this respect, the Commission notes that,
         contrary to the Notifying Party’s claims, this project was awarded to Alstom
         following a competitive tender for SNCF’s ‘Partenariat d’innovation’. SNCF’s
         project was therefore not reserved to Alstom. Rather, it was awarded following a
         European tender in the course of which SNCF discussed with several suppliers in
         order to assess the potential bidders’ capacities to fulfil its requirements. In addition,
         the selection process followed a several steps process aiming to select the best offer
         under specific selection criteria. SNCF further confirmed that two other suppliers
         initially participated in the tender but ultimately did not submit offers.323
(305) As concerns Bombardier’s position, despite the fact that the increment stemming
         from the Transaction amounts to [10-20]% at EEA level (and [5-10]% at worldwide
         level), the Commission considers that the structural impact on competition resulting
         from the Transaction will be significant. The Bombardier/Hitachi consortium’s sales
         were generated by the Zefiro V300 platform, which was awarded two very high-
         speed projects in the EEA: a contract with Trenitalia (a subsidiary of Ferrovie dello
         Stato Italiane, ‘FSI’) in 2010 (the second largest very high-speed project at global
         level in the past 10 years324), with a follow-on order in 2019, and an expected
         forthcoming contract with ILSA. [Market intelligence on the Parties’ customers].
         However, the entry of Trenitalia in ILSA’s shareholding325 led to the selection of
         Hitachi/Bombardier’s Zefiro V300 platform. In that regard, Trenitalia has explained
         to the Commission that the final selection of the Zefiro V300 platform stemmed
         from Trenitalia’s choice to procure the same platform as the one it currently operates
         in Italy, and which it considers to be ‘the best in class train at European level, in
         terms of operating performances.’326
(306) As a result, the competitive position of the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium is
         significant and represents a significant part of the very high-speed market both at
         EEA and global level. The Zefiro V300 platform thus accounts for [20-30]% of the
         very high-speed market in the EEA (Hitachi [10-20]%, Bombardier [10-20]%) and
         [10-20]% of the market at global level (Hitachi [10-20]%, Bombardier [5-10]%). As
         explained in detail in section B.ii below, the significant competitive constraint
         represented by the Zefiro V300 platform would therefore be eliminated as a result of
         the Transaction, thus aggravating its structural impact.
(307) Finally, the Notifying Party’s argument relating to Bombardier’s limited position
         over the past 5 years does not change the conclusion of the competitive assessment.
322 This project is the largest order of very high-speed trains at worldwide level in the past 10 years. The
    Notifying Party explains that approximately [20-30]% of Alstom’s worldwide very high-speed market
    share in the 2010-2019 period and approximately [30-40]% in the 2015-2019 period relates to the SNCF’s
    TGV du Futur order (Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 124.
323 Minutes of the call with SNCF, dated 16 April 2020.
324 The largest order of very high-speed rolling stock in the world in the past 10 years is the ‘TGV du Futur’
    tender, from SNCF, for a project value of almost EUR 2.8 billion. The tender has been awarded to Alstom
    in July 2018 (Form CO, Chapter B.1,paragraph 124).
325 Trenitalia has acquired joint control over ILSA (cleared by the Commission on February 11, 2020 (case
    M.9768)).
326 Reply of Trenitalia to RFI 13.
                                                          58
 ---pagebreak--- (308) As found in the Siemens/Alstom decision,327 the market for very high-speed rolling
        stock is characterised by large and infrequent tenders. As in prior cases involving
        markets characterised by lumpy demand, market shares should be analysed over
        several years.328 Calculating market shares based on a more limited length of time
        restricts the underlying number of tenders to very few, with the consequent risk of
        providing a very distorted view of each player’s competitive position. In the present
        case, calculating market shares over the 2015-2019 period instead of the 2010-2019
        period significantly reduces the number of worldwide tenders covered, from 9 to 4
        closed tenders in very high-speed rolling stock (from 4 to 2 at EEA level, including
        Switzerland). In this context, because market share calculated over a short period of
        time are based on a very small sample of tenders, any individual win or loss
        inevitably results in a very significant impact, which does not however accurately
        reflect appropriately the competitive dynamics.
(309) In any case, the Commission notes that the structural impact of the Transaction
        remains particularly important when examining the Parties’ market shares over the
        past 5 years. More precisely, over the past 5 years, the merged entity represents [80-
        90]% of the market at EEA level (Alstom [70-80]%, Bombardier [0-5]%) and [60-
        70]% at global level (Alstom [60-70]%, Bombardier [0-5]%). Furthermore, the
        Commission notes that Bombardier’s market share is underestimated, since, as
        further explained below, it is in the process of signing an agreement with the railway
        operator ILSA in Spain for the delivery of several units of the Zefiro V300.
        Bombardier’s position will therefore increase in the very short term.
(310) Moreover, the structural impact of the Transaction must be assessed by considering
        that it will eliminate the Zefiro as a competitive constraint, since Hitachi cannot
        maintain the platform on a standalone basis. As a result, the impact of the merger
        will be greater than the mere acquisition of Bombardier’s market share. Accordingly,
        the Zefiro V300 accounts for around [10-20]% of the sales in the very high-speed
        market over the past 5 years both at EEA and global level. The Transaction will
        therefore have a significant impact on the structure of the market even if assessed
        over the past 5 years.
(311) As a consequence, the combination of the Parties’ market share demonstrates the
        merged entity’s very strong position in the market for very high-speed rolling stock.
        (B.ii)    The Transaction risks eliminating the Zefiro V300 platform from the market
(312) In the context of Trenitalia’s contract, Bombardier’s contribution to the Zefiro V300
        platform accounted for c. […]%329 of the scope of the platform. Bombardier and
        Hitachi each manufacture components and provide the services that belong to their
        respective scope of work of the joint platform.330
327 Commission Decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 184 et seqq.
328 See Commission decision in Case M.7278 – GE/Alstom (2015), Annex 1 - The Commission's Economic
    Analysis of Bidding Data, recital 189, page 55.
329 […]% for Bombardier, […]% for Hitachi.
330 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 76.
                                                     59
 ---pagebreak---                With respect to rolling stock, Bombardier’s scope covers [Information on
                   Bombardier’s contracts with Hitachi].331
               With respect to maintenance, Hitachi and Bombardier [Information on
                   Bombardier’s contracts with Hitachi].332
(313) The Notifying Party explains that the allocation of work between Bombardier and
         Hitachi will [Information on Bombardier’s contracts with Hitachi] for the ILSA
         project. [Information on Bombardier’s contracts and ongoing contractual
         negotiations with Hitachi].333
(314) Furthermore, the Notifying Party has indicated the currently envisaged split of work
         for the overall HS2 contract (including rolling stock and services) is […] between
         Bombardier and Hitachi. Bombardier’s rolling stock scope of work is approximately
         […]% (including [Information on Bombardier’s contracts with Hitachi]), and its
         maintenance scope of work is approximately […]%.334
(315) If follows from the above that Bombardier’s contribution to the development of the
         Zefiro V300 platform is critical.
(316) As a consequence, Hitachi is dependent on Bombardier for the development of the
         Zefiro V300 and the iteration of the Zefiro platform offered to HS2 and would not be
         able, without Bombardier’s contribution, to continue manufacturing and supplying
         the platform on a standalone basis.
(317) Indeed, absent a partnership with Bombardier, Hitachi would have to build out the
         capabilities that Bombardier currently deploys for producing its part of the Zefiro
         V300, which would take years and require significant costs. In that regard, Hitachi
         has indicated to the Commission that ‘from Hitachi Rail’s perspective, the
         Transaction could have drastic effects on the VHS [very high-speed] market by
         hampering both Hitachi Rail’s possibilities to participate in new VHS rolling stock
         tenders as well as the ongoing production of the Zefiro platform and the provision of
         the related services, since, as stated above, this platform has been developed – and it
         is being offered - in partnership with BT [Bombardier].’ The company further stated
         that ‘If Hitachi Rail had to produce the Zefiro platform alone, it would have to build
         out the capabilities that BT currently deploys for producing its part of the platform,
         redesign and manufacture a new traction system and electronic switches […]’.335
(318) In addition, as a consequence of Hitachi’s sole involvement in the production of the
         Zefiro V300, the company would need to re-homologate the platform in view of the
         required redesign and manufacturing of a new traction system and electronic
331 Hitachi’s scope covers [Information on Bombardier’s contracts with Hitachi].
332 The 2010 Trenitalia order and the 2019 option for 14 additional trainsets each include a […]-year
    maintenance period starting from the delivery of the first train (extendable by […] year periods). The
    maintenance period started in […] when the first train from the 2010 order was delivered. Maintenance for
    the initial 2010 order will thus last until […]. The […]-year maintenance for the 2019 option was actioned
    in 2019 with the option and will therefore last until […]. Therefore, while maintenance is initially
    provided for […] years, the contracts provide […] potential […]-year extensions. Maintenance could
    therefore be provided for […] years (i.e., the whole lifecycle of the rolling stock).
333 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 77.
334 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 84.
335 Hitachi’s submission to the Commission, dated 2 July 2020.
                                                           60
 ---pagebreak---          switches: ‘[T]herefore, [Hitachi] would need to re-homologate the platform leading
         to unnecessary additional costs for operators who might decide to buy the platform.
         As the overall phase out timing from BT [Bombardier Transportation] to Hitachi Rail
         may likely require some years, the disruption of BT’s partnership with Hitachi Rail
         could thus delay or even stop altogether the manufacturing of the Zefiro
         platform.’336
(319) In that regard, the Notifying Party indicated that ‘Alstom has no current plans to
         vary or discontinue any of Bombardier’s partnerships or sub-contracting
         agreements with third parties post-Transaction. The Combined Entity is committed
         to pursue the cooperation with Hitachi/Ansaldo for ongoing projects, i.e., projects
         that are currently ongoing (Trenitalia) or for which bids are ongoing (ILSA, HS2
         and new Trenitalia order).’337 However, the Notifying Party’s intent in this respect is
         non-binding. Furthermore, nothing would prevent the Notifying Party from
         discontinuing the platform besides ongoing contracts. In any event, absent specific
         remedies, the Zefiro would cease to compete with Alstom on the very high-speed
         rolling stock market.
(320) As a result, the Transaction would eliminate competition from a [20-30]% market
         share supplier at EEA level and a [10-20]% market share supplier at global level.
(321) In addition, such lessening of competition would significantly reinforce Alstom’s
         leadership in the market for very high-speed rolling stock, as it would eliminate a
         competing platform with a strong track record. Indeed, the Zefiro V300 boasts one of
         the strongest track record in the market for very high-speed rolling stock both at
         EEA and global level. The Trenitalia contract is the second most important order for
         very high-speed trains in the past 10 years, after SNCF’s ‘TGV du Futur’ project,
         won by Alstom.338
(322) As a result of the Transaction, the merged entity will thus hold the main very high-
         speed platforms with a proven track-record in the EEA and globally, with platforms
         operated in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain,
         Switzerland, Morocco and the United States.339 While Siemens’ platforms are also
         operated in several countries (i.e. Belgium, China, France, Germany, Netherlands,
         Spain, Russia, Turkey and the UK), the Commission notes that Talgo’s track record
         is limited compared to its two main competitors, since the company has not sold
         very high-speed trains outside of Spain, except in Saudi Arabia, where it won the
         SRO (Saudi Railways Organization) project in 2011.340
(323) Furthermore, the Transaction will be all the more detrimental to competition that the
         market for very high-speed rolling stock is, already prior to the Transaction, a
         concentrated market from the supply-side perspective. In this market, Alstom is the
         leading supplier by far ([50-60]% in the EEA and Switzerland), followed by the
         consortium Hitachi/Bombardier ([20-30]% in the EEA and Switzerland).
336 Hitachi’s submission to the Commission, dated 2 July 2020.
337 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 159.
338 After Deutsche Bahn’s order in 2011 for a value of almost €3.7 billion, won by Siemens, and SNCF’s
    ‘TGV du Futur’ project.
339 Even when excluding the Zefiro V300 from the merged entity’s portfolio.
340 In that regard, Talgo signed a component sub-supply and maintenance agreement with Bombardier.
                                                        61
 ---pagebreak--- (324) The concentration of the market for very high-speed rolling stock is illustrated by the
        HHI levels pre- and post-merger. The HHI level, already largely higher than 2,000
        before the Transaction ([2000-3000] at worldwide level and [3000-4000] at EEA
        level) will be considerably higher after the Transaction ([3000-4000] at worldwide
        level and [4000-5000] at EEA level), with a delta greatly above 250 ([0-1000] at
        worldwide level and [1000-2000] at EEA level).341
(325) It follows from the above that the structural impact of the Transaction will be very
        significant. It will remove Alstom’s largest competitor from the very high-speed
        rolling stock market, both at EEA and global level, reinforcing Alstom’s position
        significantly.
          6.2.3.2. Closeness of competition
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s view
(326) The Notifying Party argues that the Parties are not close competitors in the market
        for very high-speed rolling stock.
(327) First, the Notifying Party relies on the results of the market investigation in the
        Siemens/Alstom case, which indicated that Siemens, not Bombardier, was Alstom’s
        closest competitor in the market for very high-speed rolling stock.342 In that market,
        the Commission stated that ‘competitors unanimously consider[ed] that [Siemens
        and Alstom] are each other’s closest competitors’ and that customers ‘also clearly
        consider[ed] that the Parties are close competitors, in particular in terms of
        technical capabilities.’343
(328) Second, bidding data related to the Parties’ participation in tenders would show that
        the Parties are not close competitors. Alstom competed twice more often against
        Siemens and Talgo ([…] and […] tenders respectively) than against Bombardier
        ([…] tenders, […] of which in the EEA344). It further states that, in the 2010-2019
        period, the Parties overlapped in only [20-30]% of contestable tenders, versus [50-
        60]% for Alstom and Siemens, and that Alstom lost to Siemens ([…]) and Talgo
        ([…]) more often than to the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium ([…]).345
(329) Third, the Notifying Party states that the Parties’ internal documents show that the
        Alstom and Bombardier are not close competitors. In that regard, the Notifying Party
        cites internal documents in which other competitors are identified as one of the
        Party’s most important competitive threat in the context of tenders in the EEA and in
        Turkey.346
341 These estimates include Hitachi’s market share in the very high-speed rolling stock market. Thus, the
    removal of Hitachi of the market would lead to an even higher concentration (above [5000-10000]).
342 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 111.
343 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 111, and Commission Decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom
    (2019), recitals 345 and 346.
344 The 2010 Trenitalia tender and the 2016 Renfe tender. The third one, outside the EEA, is the 2013 TCDD
    tender in Turkey.
345 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 113. The bidding data provided in the Form CO relate the overall
    market for high-speed rolling stock (comprising all trains capable of speed equal to or above 250 km/h).
346 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraphs 114-115.
                                                          62
 ---pagebreak---         (B)       The Commission’s assessment
(330) As stated in the Siemens/Alstom decision,347 suppliers that bid in tenders in the
        market for very high-speed rolling stock compete on multiple parameters. An
        important parameter relates to the trainsets offered to customers. Customers issue
        technical specifications applying to the rolling stock they wish to procure that
        suppliers must match in order to be awarded supply contracts. Other parameters also
        apply and relate to the conditions of manufacturing and delivery of trains, a
        supplier’s expertise, know-how and financial viability, supply-chain management,
        engineering and R&D capacity in case of specific developments and other factors.
(331) It follows that tender procedures for the procurement of very high-speed rolling
        stock aim at fostering competition not just for the supply of trainsets, but also on the
        basis of the supplying entity’s ability to fulfil the requirements of a rolling stock
        project including, but not limited to, a supplier’s competitiveness in rolling stock
        manufacturing, assembly and delivery, as well as its experience and viability.
(332) Consequently, the assessment of closeness of competition between the Parties cannot
        be limited to a comparison of the observable characteristics of their existing
        platforms, but must also take into account other overall factors (such as track-record,
        expertise, portfolio, manufacturing locations, ability to customise, etc.) that are
        relevant for customers when awarding tenders.
(333) It follows that the assessment of closeness of competition between the Parties should
        rely on an analysis of the closeness of their product portfolios as well as, more
        broadly, on the closeness of the Parties’ overall positions as alternative suppliers in
        the market for very high-speed rolling stock.
(334) In that regard, the Commission considers that the Parties are particularly close
        competitors in the market for very high-speed rolling stock.
(335) First, the Commission notes that the Parties are among the few rolling stock
        suppliers able to provide very high-speed platforms in the EEA and at global level.
        As stated above, only four very high-speed suppliers are currently active in the EEA,
        i.e., Alstom, the consortium Hitachi/Bombardier, Siemens and Talgo. The very high-
        speed platforms offered by these suppliers are able to meet the customers’ demand in
        trains operating at speed equal to or above 300 km/h. In that regard, the market
        investigation confirmed that customers regularly invite all or part of these four
        suppliers to submit bids and consider them as credible bidders in the context of very
        high-speed rolling stock tenders. The same consideration applies at global level,
        where the market shares of the remaining non-European competitors (such as
        CRRC) remain very limited compared to European suppliers and the merged entity
        in particular.348
(336) Among the suppliers for very high-speed rolling stock, the Parties have the strongest
        track-record, followed by Siemens, as illustrated by their respective market shares at
        EEA and global level. As confirmed by the market investigation and further
347 Commission Decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 332 et seqq.
348 The Commission notes that, in any event, concentration of the market for very high-speed rolling stock in
    the EEA (including Switzerland) necessarily leads to concentration of the market at global level, since the
    EEA (including Switzerland) represents [60-70]% of the demand in very high-speed
                                                         63
 ---pagebreak---          explained below, a strong track-record is considered to be one of the most important
         criteria for customers when selecting a very high-speed rolling stock supplier
(337) Second, the bidding analysis shows that the Parties exert a very important
         competitive constraint on each other in the context of the very high-speed tenders
         issued at EEA and global level, as they frequently bid for the same projects.
(338) Due to the infrequency of the tenders, the number of instances in which the Parties
         competed is necessarily limited. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the Parties
         have competed head-to-head for most opportunities in the EEA and global level in
         the past ten years. In that regard, the Commission notes that, in the past 10 years, the
         Parties were simultaneously present in [60-70]% of the very high-speed projects
         issued in the EEA and [50-60]% of the projects at global level.349 In the context of
         the limited number of suppliers active in the very high-speed market at EEA and
         global level and submitting bids to tenders, the Parties exert on each other very
         important competitive constraint in each tender in which they participate.
         Furthermore, the Commission notes that the competitive constraint exerted by
         Bombardier is particularly important on Alstom, as Bombardier systematically
         participated in [90-100]% tenders in which Alstom was also present at both EEA and
         global level in the past 10 years.
(339) In addition, examples of ongoing projects (ILSA and HS2) demonstrate the current
         closeness of competition between the Parties and illustrate the constraints that they
         exercise on one another.
(340) In the ongoing ILSA project, for which the Parties’ platforms were successively
         chosen as the preferred solution. In 2017, the Spanish high-speed infrastructure
         manager (Adif AV) tendered slots for operation of the Spanish high-speed network.
         Six operators, Renfe, ILSA, Rielsfera (subsidiary of SNCF), Talgo Globalia alliance,
         Globalvía and Eco Rail) bid, each offering their own preferred rolling stock supplier.
         Adif awarded a slot to the ILSA/Trenitalia consortium in November 2019.350
(341) The Notifying Party explains that, as found in the Siemens/Alstom decision, ILSA
         initially selected Alstom’s [Information on Alstom’s bidding strategy]. [Market
         intelligence on the Parties’ customers]351. In that regard, Trenitalia has explained to
         the Commission that the final selection of the Zefiro V300 platform stemmed from
         Trenitalia’s choice to procure the same platform as the one it currently operates in
         Italy, and which it considers to be ‘the best in class train at European level, in terms
         of operating performances.’352
349 The list of the projects issued in the past 10 years is the following: Trenitalia (Italy, 2010), ONCF
    (Morocco, 2010), Eurostar (UK, 2010), Saudi Railways Organisation (2011, Saudi Arabia), TCDD
    (Turkey, one project in 2013 and another one in 2018), Renfe (Spain, 2016), SNCF (France, 2018), and
    the two ongoing HS2 and ILSA projects. Bombardier’s bid in consortium and on a standalone basis have
    been included in the percentages.
350 ILSA will operate 16 services (one train per hour per direction) on three corridors, namely (i) the corridor
    Madrid-Barcelona-French border, (ii) the corridor Madrid-Valencia/Alicante and (iii) the corridor Madrid-
    Seville/Málaga.
351 Trenitalia has since acquired joint control over ILSA (cleared by the Commission on February 11, 2020
    (case M.9768)).
352 Reply of Trenitalia to RFI 13.
                                                         64
 ---pagebreak--- (342) It follows from the above that Alstom’s and Bombardier’s platforms were ILSA’s
        two preferred solutions. Trenitalia’s choice to favour the Zefiro V300 platform, after
        its involvement in ILSA, shows that the platform remains highly competitive.
(343) Moreover, the Parties are currently competing for the ongoing HS2 tender in the UK.
        HS2 is the public body in charge of developing and managing a new very high-speed
        railway (up to 360 km/h) linking up London, the Midlands and the North of England.
        Phase One will open between 2029 and 2033 and run from London to Birmingham.
        Phase Two will extend the route from Birmingham to Crewe and to Manchester and
        Leeds. A tender for the procurement of high-speed rolling stock for Phase One
        railway is currently ongoing. The tender is planned to be awarded by the end of 2020
        or in early 2021 at the latest. In that regard, HS2 has indicated to the Commission
        that five bidders passed the prequalification stage and submitted tenders, namely
        Alstom, the consortium Bombardier/Hitachi, Siemens, CAF and Talgo. At the
        moment, all five offers remain in the procurement process.353 As mentioned above,
        Alstom’s, Siemens’ and the consortium Hitachi/Bombardier’s bids appear to be the
        most credible, given that CAF qualified as a bidder after a legal action and Talgo has
        never delivered very high-speed rolling stock in the EEA outside its domestic market
        (Spain).
(344) Third, the results of the market investigation largely confirmed that the Parties are
        particularly close competitors. A majority of customers indicated that Siemens and
        Bombardier are the closest competitors to Alstom in terms of product offering and
        technical capabilities.354 Accordingly, Alstom and Siemens are considered by a
        majority of customers to be the closest competitors to Bombardier, either operating
        on a standalone basis and or in consortium with Hitachi.355
(345) In addition, customers have been asked to rank the very high-speed suppliers which
        should be considered as Alstom’s or Bombardier’s best alternative in terms of
        products, competitiveness, quality and innovation. The results show that Siemens is
        on average considered to be Alstom’s closest competitor, closely followed by
        Bombardier (on a standalone basis or in consortium Hitachi).356 Other competitors,
        such as Talgo, are ranked largely below Siemens and Bombardier. For instance, one
        major customer indicated that ‘[t]he consortium between Bombardier and Hitachi is
        the best alternative [to Alstom] because it represents the fusion of high-level of
        know-how, techniques and production capacity.’ The same findings apply when
        customers are asked to rank Bombardier’s closest competitors: Siemens is
        considered to be Bombardier’s closest competitor, closely followed by Alstom.357
(346) Responses provided by competitors are in line with the customers’ view, with a
        majority considering that Siemens and Bombardier (on a standalone basis or in
        consortium Hitachi) are Alstom’s closest competitors.358 For instance, a competitor
        stated that ‘Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier (alone and/or in consortium with
        Hitachi/Ansaldo) are the only three credible players with proven platforms in the
353 Minutes of the call with HS2, dated 29 April 2020.
354 Q2, replies to questions 21.1. and 21.2.
355 Q2, replies to questions 21.3., 21.4., 21.5. and 21.6.
356 Q2, replies to question 28.1.
357 Q2, replies to question 28.2.
358 Q1, replies to question 24.1.
                                                           65
 ---pagebreak---         EEA. The other manufacturers lack either a platform that is operational outside its
        home market, if operational at all, or have to rely on Bombardier as a consortium
        partner to be able to have an offering.’ Accordingly, Siemens and Alstom and, to a
        lesser extent, Talgo, are considered to be Bombardier’s closest competitors by a
        large number of very high-speed rolling stock suppliers.359 A competitor indicated in
        that regard that ‘[i]t can be checked that Very High Speed tenders in the EEA in the
        past years have been awarded in most cases to Alstom, Siemens,
        Bombardier/Hitachi, or Talgo. Outside of EEA, Rotem and Japanese holdings have
        very high speed Rolling stock in their portfolio, but not so closest (sic) to
        Bombardier product offering.’360 In addition, a competitor indicated that the
        Transaction will lead to the combination of the few companies with “a track record
        of worldwide projects.”361
(347) In addition, a majority of competitors indicated that the Parties, along with Siemens,
        have the best proven capability to innovate and to customise their platforms
        according to the customers’ needs. They further pointed out the strong local footprint
        of manufacturing and services facilities owned by the Parties.362
(348) Fourth, the Commission notes that the excerpt of the Parties’ internal documents in
        the context of five tenders issued in the EEA and outside the EEA quoted by the
        Notifying Party in the Form CO do not demonstrate the lack of competitive
        closeness between the Parties. Indeed, among the tenders concerned by these
        excerpts, the Commission notes that:
              Two tenders (2014 SBB (Switzerland), ongoing TCDD (Turkey)) concern
                  high-speed rolling stock363 (trains capable of speed below 300 km/h), for
                  which the Parties’ activities do not overlap due to the lack of Bombardier’s
                  sales in the past 10 years. The Commission further notes that Bombardier did
                  not bid in the 2014 SBB tender;
              Two tenders (2013 TCDD (Turkey) and 2016 Renfe (Spain)) concern very
                  high-speed rolling stock. However, the Commission notes that Bombardier
                  bid as a standalone supplier in these tenders. As a consequence, Alstom’s
                  internal assessment related to the threat represented by Bombardier’s bid did
                  not concern Bombardier as a supplier offering a very high-speed platform in
                  consortium with Hitachi;
              The fifth one (HS2 (UK)) is ongoing and the outcome of the tender remains
                  unknown. There are currently five bidders in the tender, namely Siemens,
                  Alstom, the consortium Hitachi/Bombardier, CAF and Talgo. However, the
                  bids presented by Siemens, Alstom and the consortium Hitachi/Bombardier
                  may be considered as the more credible, given that CAF qualified as a bidder
                  after a threat of legal action and Talgo has never delivered very high-speed
                  rolling stock in the EEA outside its domestic market (Spain).
359 Q1, replies to question 24.2.
360 Q1, replies to question 24.2.
361 Q1, replies to question 33.2.
362 Q1, replies to question 26.
363 Form CO, footnote 237; CPL.
                                                    66
 ---pagebreak--- (349) It follows from the above that the Parties compete closely in the market for very
       high-speed rolling stock at EEA and global level.
         6.2.3.3. Barriers to entry
       (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(350) The Notifying Party considers that barriers to entry are limited for very high-speed
       rolling stock at EEA and global level.
(351) At global level, the Notifying Party states that very high-speed customers do not face
       any significant barriers to switch rolling stock supplier. According to the Notifying
       Party, the large number of suppliers active in the market enable customers to
       purchase rolling stock from a wide range of alternatives. The Notifying Party
       provides several examples of customers who switched suppliers, including (i) the
       2010 Eurostar tender, where Eurostar changed from Alstom to Siemens; (ii) SBB
       switching from Alstom to Stadler in 2014; and (iii) Spanish operator Renfe
       procuring rolling stock from various suppliers including Talgo, Alstom, Siemens,
       and a CAF-Alstom consortium. More generally, the number of bidders participating
       in contestable tenders demonstrates the possibility for customers to change rolling
       stock supplier. For instance, Renfe received applications from five suppliers for its
       2016 tender (Alstom, CAF, Siemens, Talgo, and Bombardier) and CRRC, Hyundai
       Rotem, Siemens, Alstom, CAF, and Bombardier all competed in the pre-
       qualification phase of the 2018 TCDD tender in Turkey.364
(352) At EEA level, the Notifying Party considers that barriers to enter are not such to
       deter entry and expansion within the EEA for rolling stock suppliers for the
       following reasons.
(353) First, the Notifying Party considers that all competitors have sufficient technical and
       financial capabilities to enter or expand their position across the EEA. The Notifying
       Party considers that several suppliers are able to provide very high-speed rolling
       stock in the EEA, including Siemens, Talgo, Hitachi, CAF or CRRC. Regarding the
       latter specifically, the Notifying Party points out the fact CRRC is the largest global
       rolling stock player and has demonstrated its technical capabilities through its
       various complex projects around the world. It further states that CRRC has sufficient
       knowledge of the European technical standards, since the Chinese company has
       recently developed a high-speed train with maximum operating speeds of 280 km/h,
       a 250 km/h version of its EMU whose interior design is ‘complying with TSI’ and a
       350 km/h version complying with international and EN 15 standards regarding
       safety and reliability.365
(354) Second, the Notifying Party states that tender process and bidding costs do not deter
       competitors from bidding across the EEA. This is evidenced by the high number of
       competitors participating in very-high-speed tenders. Very high-speed suppliers are
       able to recoup the bidding and development costs after the award. This reduces the
       bidders’ financial exposure and keeps bidding costs low. More generally, suppliers
       active in the EEA are highly sophisticated players with significant financial
       resources and extensive experience in supplying rolling stock. They are therefore
364 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 206.
365 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 166.
                                                  67
 ---pagebreak---         well aware of the tender process and related costs and will participate in a tender
        when commercially attractive.
(355) Third, the Notifying Party considers that, contrary to the Commission’s
        consideration in Siemens/Alstom, EEA-specific technical requirements do not
        constitute a barrier to entry in the EEA for non-European high-speed suppliers.
(356) The Notifying Party states that convergence of technical requirements at global level
        facilitates entry in the EEA. Technical requirements in and outside the EEA are
        increasingly similar and address the same issues. As such, there is no category of
        technical requirements existing only in the EEA and not in other countries. European
        standards have in fact often been the basis for other standards. In certain countries,
        technical standards are also more stringent than EEA ones, making it easier for
        foreign suppliers to comply with European requirements.366 Therefore, non-
        European suppliers such as CRRC, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki, and Hitachi already
        comply with high standards which do not greatly differ from European
        requirements.367
(357) In addition, the Notifying Party states that the implementation of a single market for
        rail services (also called Single European Railway Area), notably via the Fourth
        Railway Package of 2016, has harmonized most of the technical requirements that
        apply to high-speed trains in Europe by means of TSIs. This harmonisation of
        technical requirements has facilitated the entry of non-European high-speed
        suppliers who now face standardised technical requirements and can more easily
        access and compete throughout the EEA.368
(358) Furthermore, according to the Notifying Party, as homologation is only obtained
        once a tender is won and it is not part of the bidding costs, it does not deter entry or
        expansion. Suppliers will bid for tenders without prior homologation if these are
        commercially interesting.369
(359) Finally, the Notifying Party explains that commercial references are not an
        insurmountable barrier to entry and are, contrary to the Commission’s consideration
        in Siemens/Alstom, not required to enter the very high-speed market. While useful at
        first to assess a supplier’s experience, commercial references (i.e., the track-record of
        previous supplies) are not relevant for the customer’s ultimate decision during the
        bidding process. Multiple suppliers have already won tenders without prior
        commercial references at platform or national level. For instance, Talgo won the
        2016 Renfe tender with its Talgo 350 platform without any reference in very high-
        speed.370
        (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(360) Contrary to the Notifying Party’s view, the market for very high-speed rolling stock
        is characterised by high barriers to entry. As stated in the Siemens/Alstom decision,
366 For instance, in the U.S., manufacturers are required to make all cars and related toilets accessible by
    wheelchair users.
367 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 222.
368 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 222.
369 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 224.
370 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 224.
                                                        68
 ---pagebreak---         most of these barriers generally apply at EEA and global level. Some barriers are
        EEA-specific.
(361) With respect to the generally applicable barriers to enter, the Commission notes the
        existence of several barriers related to the level of technical knowledge, investment
        and prior experience required vis-à-vis the suppliers.
(362) First, a majority of respondents confirmed that the development of very high-speed
        rolling stock requires significant investment, technical capabilities and time. In
        particular, respondents to the market investigation stressed out the fact that the
        development of a very high-speed platform demand ‘considerable’ technological and
        financial capabilities.
(363) Several reasons explain the required level of investments with respect to very high-
        speed platforms. For instance, a competitor explains that the strict safety regulatory
        requirements (e.g. sophisticated aerodynamic and dynamic aspects or crash)
        applicable to very high-speed platforms entail very important investments and
        technical developments. Testing a newly-developed platform also requires important
        investments. In that regard, a competitor explained that ‘One of the main technical
        issues which arise when developing VHS trains is that there are no specific very
        high-speed circuits to test their units. Therefore, track tests need to be performed on
        tracks in service and during limited time periods to respect traffic restrictions (for
        instance, at night). In addition, manufactures need to negotiate agreements with
        infrastructure operators to carry out special tests.’371 This financial and technical
        barrier to enter the high-speed and very high-speed market is confirmed by a
        majority of customers. For instance, one of them indicated that ‘The development of
        a high speed train, starting from conception phase to the final certification requires
        specific technical capabilities, as well as the financial one. Moreover, costs related
        to design and authorization processes can be very high, thus constituting a
        significant barrier to enter a new market.’ Another customer explained that the level
        of investment needed is linked to the long duration needed to develop a very high-
        speed platform: ‘The development of a very high-speed product platform appears to
        require significant investment over a long period of time – perhaps in the region of 5
        years.’ 372
(364) In addition, the level of investment required to develop a very high-speed platform
        constitutes a barrier to enter for middle-sized rolling stock suppliers who do not have
        the financial capabilities to sustain such investments. As stated by a competitor,
        ‘[f]inancial requirements are becoming difficult to fulfil for middle-size companies.
        This might be one of the reasons why some sector companies have been merged in
        order to be able to deal with this, leaving a less competitive scenario.’373
(365) Second, another financial barrier to enter pointed by the respondents is the level of
        investments required to participate in tenders. A majority of respondents to the
        market investigation considered that investments such as bidding costs, pre-
        qualification costs and business development costs relating to adaptation of existing
371 Q1, replies to question 19.3.1.
372 Q2, replies to question 20.3.1.
373 Q1, reply to question 19.3.1.
                                                   69
 ---pagebreak---         products to the customer's needs constitute a significant barrier to enter.374 For
        instance, a competitor stated that ‘It is also becoming common in tenders to have
        very demanding financial requirements in terms of capital and guarantees. This
        makes it difficult or even inaccessible for middle-size companies to compete in the
        tenders, independent of how competitive their proposal is. This goes in favour of
        very big multinationals. The cost of developing a very high-speed trains bid can
        reach several million euros, usually more expensive than a high speed trains bid.’
(366) Third, the Commission notes that commercial references and a proven track-record
        constitute another significant barrier to enter. As stated in the Siemens/Alstom
        decision, when organising a tender for the procurement of very high-speed rolling
        stock customers require that prospective bidders demonstrate that they have a track-
        record of previous supplies. References provide customers with a confirmation that a
        given supplier has experience in executing similar projects and will thus be able to
        meet customers' requirements in similar projects.375
(367) In that regard, a large majority of customers explain that the bidders’ track record in
        very high-speed constitutes a very important criteria taken into account in the bid
        assessment.376 Indeed, customers usually require several references to qualify for a
        tender.377 More specifically, respondents to the market investigation consider that
        having supplied other customers in the EEA or outside the EEA when bidding in
        very high-speed rolling stock tenders is a significant advantage.378 Accordingly, a
        majority of customers consider that prior sales of a very high-speed platform
        competing in a tender constitute an important factor for the assessment of the bid.379
        As stated in the Siemens/Alstom decision, the Commission notes that references in
        the EEA are particularly important, because suppliers with such track-record are
        judged to be very competent, reliable and, therefore, more credible bidders.380
(368) In addition, the existence of a longstanding relationship with a very high-speed
        rolling stock supplier constitutes an important selection criterion.381 In that regard,
        the results of the market investigation show that, from the perspective of customers,
        a bidder who previously supplied very high-speed rolling stock to the a given rail
        operator has an advantage due to its ‘[b]etter knowledge of our requirements and
        well-know product reliability.’382 Competitors hold the same view.383
(369) With respect to EEA-specific barriers to entry, the results of the market investigation
        showed that authorisation under EEA technical and safety rules constitutes another
        barrier to enter the very high-speed market in the EEA. As stated in the
        Siemens/Alstom decision, very high-speed rolling stock cannot be placed in service
        in the EEA unless suppliers obtain regulatory authorisations at EU and Member
374 Q1, replies to question 19.2.1.; Q2, replies to question 20.2.1.
375 Commission decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 463.
376 Q2, replies to question 20.4.1.
377 Q1, replies to question 19.4.1.3; Q2, question 20.4.1.3.
378 Q1, replies to questions 36.1. and 36.2.
379 Q2, replies to question 38.
380 Commission decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 474; Q2, replies to question 38.
381 Q1, replies to question 34; Q2, replies to question 36.
382 Q2, reply to question 36.
383 Q1, replies to question 34.
                                                            70
 ---pagebreak---          State level. The authorisation process is primarily governed by the Interoperability
         Directive,384 TSIs385 and the Safety Directive.386
(370) It should be noted that, as stated by the Notifying Party, the number of national rules
         in the EEA is expected to decrease due to the extension of the scope of TSIs and the
         harmonisation of requirements.387 Nevertheless, the majority of respondents to the
         market investigation, including competitors, have confirmed that the European
         certification and authorisation regime constitutes a barrier to entry.388 For instance, a
         competitor indicated that ‘HS train manufacturers must follow a long homologation
         process with a certification body, which may take up to 6 years. Delays in the
         certification process may be caused mainly by necessary adjustments required
         between the different interfaces of the manufacturer, the infrastructure operator and
         the certification body itself.’389
(371) In addition, even if customers do not necessarily expect suppliers to offer a pre-
         certified solution, bidding for a contract with a fully authorised product under both
         European TSIs and the relevant national technical rules constitutes a significant
         advantage. In that regard, a competitor explains that ‘[a]ll parties, Operators and
         Suppliers, are willing to reduce cost and time that comes from authorisation
         processes, which is always a lengthy and expensive process.’390
(372) Furthermore, despite EU procurement rules prohibiting customers from
         disqualifying bidders that do not have local production assets (i.e., facilities located
         in the country in which the relevant customer is located), some respondents have
         indicated that customers do informally favour bidders that do or plan to invest in
         local facilities. According to respondents to the market investigation, having a local
         presence, even if not a formal requirement, can constitute an important aspect of a
         bid or a competitive advantage for the bidder.391 For instance, a competitor indicated
         that ‘[t]here are only four countries in EEA with very high-speed operations (Spain,
         France, Italy & Germany). In all those countries listed are rolling suppliers located.
         Thus, without having a home market the entry barrier is very high.’392
(373) In that regard, competitors confirm that, post-Transaction, the merged entity will
         have a competitive advantage due to its larger manufacturing footprint for very high-
         speed rolling stock in the EEA. They explained that the merged entity’s
384 Directive 2008/57/EC of 17 July on the interoperability of the rail systems within the Community,
    (‘Interoperability Directive’) [2008] OJL 191/1 (recast by Directive 2016/797/EU of 16 May 2016 on the
    interoperability of the rail system within the European Union [2016] OJL 138/44).
385 TSIs are developed by the EU Agency for Railways under the Interoperability Directive, the Commission
    Delegated Decision (EU) 2017/1474 of 8 June 2017 supplementing Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the
    European Parliament and of the Council with regard to specific objectives for the drafting, adoption and
    review of technical specifications for interoperability and the Agency's 2017 mandate.
386 Directive 2004/49/EC of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways, (Safety Directive) [2004]
    OJL 220/16 (recast by Directive 2016/798/EU of 11 May 2016 on railway safety [2016] OJL 138/102).
387 Q1, replies to question 14. For completeness, the Interoperability Directive 2008/57/EC and the Safety
    Directive 2004/49/EC have been amended by Directive (EU) 2016/797 and Directive (EU) 2016/798
    giving a reinforced role to the European Union Agency for Railways to limit national rules.
388 Q1, replies to question 19.1; Q2, replies to question 20.1.
389 Q1, reply to question 19.1.1.
390 Q1, reply to question 29.1.
391 Q1, replies to question 20.1.
392 Q1, reply to question 20.1.
                                                            71
 ---pagebreak---         manufacturing footprint will be the largest in the EEA, which will provide it with a
        significant competitive advantage thanks to its closeness to the potential clients and
        the possible economies of scale. For instance, a competitor summarised the
        competitive advantages stemming from the merged entity’s industrial footprint in
        those terms: ‘Close access to local supply chain, sources of funding and clients;
        economies of scale, higher negotiating power with suppliers, subsegment
        specialization in each facility, reinforced R&D capabilities, (…).’393
(374) Finally, as a result of the above mentioned EEA-specific barriers, the entry of new
        suppliers is highly unlikely in a foreseeable future in the EEA. In particular, the
        Notifying Party’s argument that CRRC, the Chinese rolling stock manufacturer, is a
        credible likely entrant has not been supported by the market investigation.
(375) The existence of high barriers to enter the European market for very high-speed
        rolling stock has been confirmed by CRRC in the course of the investigation. CRRC
        confirmed that, contrary to the Notifying Party’s assumption, it does not have a TSI
        compliant very high-speed platform in the EEA. On balance, CRRC considers that
        the lack of any track record in the EEA and the complexity of homologation
        requirements contribute to restraining its prospect of entry. The company explained
        that: ‘there are high barriers to enter the European high speed and very high speed
        markets due to [CRRC’s] lack of commercial references with European customers
        and the complex process for obtaining TSI homologation/certification. CRRC
        currently does not have a TSI-compliant high speed or very high speed platform in
        Europe. The Joint Venture between CRRC and Bombardier concerns high speed
        trains supplied only in the domestic Chinese market.’394
(376) CRRC’s difficulty to enter the European very high-speed market has been recently
        illustrated during the HS2 tender, in which the company tried to pre-qualify but
        failed to be qualified to participate in the tender’s bidding process.395
(377) CRRC’s lack of credibility in the European market for very high-speed has been
        further confirmed by the results of the market investigation. Competitors consider
        that CRRC is not currently a credible bidder in the EEA, and most of them indicated
        that a minimum period of 5 to 10 years should be necessary for the company to offer
        credible bids.396
(378) Competitors confirmed that CRRC’s impediment to become able to bid for contracts
        in the EEA mostly relies in the investment and timeframe required to get a very
        high-speed platform authorised. A explained by a competitor, ‘[n]or CRRC nor other
        Chinese company is currently present in the VHS trains segment in the EEA and the
        situation may be the same in the near future due to the existence of high barriers to
        entry into this segment in the EEA. […] Furthermore, in order to access this segment
        in the EEA, manufacturers need to go through subsequent phases, that take at least
        12 years to complete, namely,: (i) design and construction; (ii) factory and track
        testing; (iii) validation; (iv) homologation; and (v) commercial service.’397
        Customers evoke additional barriers to entry preventing CRRC from entering the
393 Q2, reply to question 33.2.
394 Minutes of the call with CRRC, dated 27 May 2020.
395 Minutes of the call with CRRC, dated 27 May 2020.
396 Q1, replies to questions 43 and 43.3.
397 Q1, reply to question 43.2.
                                                      72
 ---pagebreak---         European market for very high-speed rolling stock, such as the lack of market
        experience, proof of product quality as well as the language barrier.398
(379) The same considerations equally apply to other Asian suppliers such as Hyundai
        Rotem, Kawasaki and Toshiba, which face the same challenges to enter the overall
        European market for very high-speed rolling stock, as confirmed by the customers
        who responded to the market investigation.399 Accordingly, an Asian supplied
        indicated that ‘[c]onsidering huge necessary investments in order to comply with
        EEA technical requirements, to develop a manufacturing partner for rolling stock
        assembly, and to establish EEA-based production and assembly capacity, we do not
        have a plan to enter very high-speed rolling stock market in EEA […].’
(380) It follows from the above that the market for very high-speed rolling stock are
        characterised by high barrier to enter in the EEA and at global level.
          6.2.3.4. Countervailing buyer power
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s view
(381) The Notifying Party states that very high-speed rolling stock customers are
        sophisticated and experienced, and choose their suppliers through highly structured
        and competitive tender procedures. The competitiveness of the very high-speed
        market is further safeguarded by the high number of bidders, the customer’s ability
        to choose and switch suppliers and the resulting pressure for suppliers to offer
        technically advanced products at low prices.
(382) First, the Notifying Party also argues that sophisticated customers drive competition
        through highly structured tenders. Most customers are large, incumbent, public
        entities, backed by national governments, such as DB (Germany), Renfe (Spain),
        SNCF (France), or SNCB (Belgium). These sophisticated customers have
        longstanding experience with the procurement of very high-speed trains. This
        customer set-up, combined with the high commercial value of the projects, safeguard
        the customer’s leverage powers.400
(383) Second, the Notifying Party considers that the significant number of bidders allows
        customers to compare offers and switch supplies. This was the case in the 2010
        Eurostar tender, where Eurostar changed from Alstom to Siemens. The number of
        competitors participating in tenders and the customers’ ability to switch supplier
        incentivises competitors to provide highly competitive offers. More importantly,
        according to the Notifying Party, customers will not have reduced options in
        upcoming tenders, as Bombardier has not won a very high-speed tender on a stand-
        alone basis in the past 10 years.401
        (B)         The Commission’s assessment
(384) Under paragraph 64 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, countervailing buyer
        power consists in the bargaining strength that a buyer has vis-à-vis the seller in
398 Q2, replies to question 46.2.
399 Q2, replies to question 49.2.
400 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 195.
401 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 184.
                                                   73
 ---pagebreak---         commercial negotiations due to its size, its commercial significance to the seller and
        its ability to switch to alternative suppliers. Several elements concur to refute the
        existence of countervailing buyer power in the present case.
(385) The exercise of buyer power requires that customers have sufficient alternative
        options other than the Parties and can credibly switch or threaten to switch suppliers
        after the Transaction. In that regard, the Commission notes that the high-speed and
        very high-speed tenders are characterised by a low number of bidders, and that the
        Parties are among the suppliers, with Siemens, who participate the most in tenders.
(386) Out of [a small number of] very high-speed contestable tenders402 in the period
        2010-2019 in the EEA and Switzerland:
              [Specific details based primarily on Alstom’s bidding data and market
                 intelligence in relation to customers, the number and the identities of bidders
                 in very high speed tenders in the EEA and Switzerland in 2010-2019];403
              […];
              […].
(387) Overall, there have been only 3 bidders on average in very high-speed rolling stock
        tenders in the EEA and 2.7 at the worldwide level in the 2010-2019 period. Alstom
        participated in [90-100]% [of] very high-speed rolling stock tenders in the EEA in
        the past 10 years, and Bombardier participated in [60-70]% of them. This means
        that, on average, options available to customers will significantly reduce in
        upcoming tenders, the merger either lowering the number of bidders, or reinforcing
        the position of the merged entity. This is all the more true that, as described above at
        paragraph (340), in a rare additional opportunity in the EEA, namely the ILSA
        procurement, the customer switched its procurement decision from Alstom to
        Bombardier/Hitachi, highlighting that the Zefiro V300 platform is ‘the best in class
        train at European level, in terms of operating performances’ (paragraph (341)
        above). As a result, customers will be unable to counter the merged entity's increased
        market power. The impact is also significant at worldwide level, since Bombardier
        participated in [40-50]% of the […] tenders issued in the past 10 years (Alstom
        participated in [90-100]% of them).
(388) These results are consistent with the results of the market investigation. A majority
        of respondents qualified customers’ buyer power for the procurement of very high-
        speed rolling stock as ‘medium’404 and dependent on the outcome of tendering
        processes put in place.
(389) As found by the Commission in Siemens/Alstom, the tendering process for rolling
        stock, including in tenders for very high-speed trains, is typically carried out in four
        phases:
             a. An initial market engagement phase, during which customers collect
                 information about manufacturers and available products and solutions;
402 Excluding the ILSA project.
403 Form CO, Chapter B.1., paragraph 130.
404 Q1, replies question 49; Q2, replies to question 54.
                                                         74
 ---pagebreak---              b. A pre-qualification phase, which typically follows the publication of a
                  request for qualification (‘RFQ’) and consists in customers providing an
                  overview of the tender (a Pre-qualification Pack, ‘PQP’) and issuing a pre-
                  qualification questionnaire to assess prospective suppliers' track record and
                  credentials. At the end of the process, customers select suppliers qualified to
                  bid. Customers usually do not make the short-list of qualified suppliers
                  public;
             c. A bidding phase, which is marked by the issuance of a request for proposals
                  (‘RFP’), which describes the project's specifications, assessment criteria,
                  grading scheme and formal conditions for submitting bids. Prospective
                  suppliers prepare and submit bids on this basis. Tenders may have more than
                  one bidding round, often involving the submission of best and final offers
                  (‘BAFOs’);
             d. A post-bidding phase, which involves the customers' evaluation of bids and
                  award, as well as final exchanges with the supplier.
(390) This process, which typically takes several years, entails long preparation from the
        potential bidders as well as a long assessment period of the bids by the customers
        followed by negotiation between the railway operator and the participants. It aims to
        ensure a competitive dynamic throughout the tender in order to ultimately select the
        best offer on the basis of criteria defined by the customer.
(391) However, this process does not suffice alone to ensure the competitive dynamic
        leading to the selection of the best offer. As highlighted by respondents to the market
        investigation, a competitive outcome can only be obtained if a sufficient number of
        bidders participate in a tender. As stated by a competitor, ‘[b]uyer power is relevant
        if rail operators have the option between several established and proven
        suppliers.’405
(392) In that regard, respondents to the market investigation indicated that one of the main
        impediments to the customer’s buyer power is the low number of bidders, due to the
        high level of concentration in the market for very high-speed in particular. Thus, in
        the course of the market investigation, customers explained that ‘[w]e procure very
        high speed trains through competitive procurement procedures. The number of
        suppliers is limited.’ They confirmed the fact that ‘the market is very concentrated
        and made up of large, international businesses with significant ‘bargaining power’
        themselves.’406
(393) Following the Transaction, as stated in section 6.2.3.1. above, the market for very
        high-speed rolling stock will become significantly more concentrated, thus further
        limiting the number of bidders in tenders and the customers’ buyer power. This is
        confirmed by a majority of competitors who consider that Transaction will
        negatively impact the customers’ bargaining strength in commercial negotiations
405 Q1, reply to question 49.1.
406 Q2, replies to question 54.1.
                                                    75
 ---pagebreak---         when purchasing very high-speed rolling stock,407 due to the reduction of available
        alternatives and the position of the merged entity.408
(394) Finally, the Commission notes that, as found in Siemens/Alstom, certain customers’
        countervailing buyer power can be limited in the context of special relationships
        between these customers and suppliers.
(395) In particular, all tenders for very high-speed rolling stock organised by Deutsche
        Bahn, SNCF, Trenitalia, Renfe and SBB since 2008 have been awarded to each of
        the corresponding national supplier (respectively, Siemens, Alstom, Hitachi, Talgo
        and Stadler). Historically, SNCF and Deutsche Bahn procure trains that have been
        developed and designed specifically for them. As explained by the Notifying Party,
        ‘ICx platform, with a maximum speed of 250 km/h, was developed for DB and
        operates in Germany’ and ‘Alstom won the SNCF tender with a customer-specific
        version of the TGV du Futur, named TGV 2020.’409
(396) These tailored developments limit the ability of those customers to exercise buyer
        power since they have limited options to effectively change suppliers. In that regard,
        a competitor stated that ‘[r]ailway companies do not have countervailing power,
        particularly in the VHS trains segment. Customers of VHS trains are national
        railway companies, such as the SNCF in France, Deutsche Bahn in Germany, Renfe
        in Spain or Trenitalia in Italy; and private railway companies, such as Eurostar or
        NTV. However, these companies do not have buying power, in particular, given the
        close relationship between national railway operators and national champions and
        the existence of partnership agreements (such as the innovation partnership entered
        into by SNCF and Alstom in 2016). In fact, the SNCF has only acquired VHS trains
        from Alstom, Deutsch Bahn from Siemens and Trenitalia from Ansaldo [Hitachi] (in
        a consortium with Bombardier). Furthermore, Eurostar, which is run by a co-
        operation between French, UK and Belgian national railway companies, only
        invited Alstom and Siemens to bid for the supply of its new VHS trains.’410
(397) It follows from the above that customers’ buyer power is limited, in particular in the
        market for very high-speed rolling stock, and that the Transaction, by eliminating a
        significant supplier in very high-speed rolling stock, is likely to further decrease
        their countervailing buyer power.
          6.2.3.5. Liberalisation
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s view
(398) As explained by the Notifying Party, save for a few countries including Italy and
        Switzerland, high-speed rail operations are not yet open to competition but are
        instead performed by national incumbent operators as part of their ‘public service’
        obligation. International traffic (i.e., traffic across different Member States) is
        typically done by partnerships between national operators such as Lyria (SNCF and
        SBB), Thalys (SNCF and SNCB), and Alleo (SNCF and DB).
407 Q1, replies to question 50.
408 Q1, reply to question 50.1.
409 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraphs 62 and 134.
410 Q1, reply to question 49.1.
                                                  76
 ---pagebreak--- (399) The Notifying Party explains that liberalisation of very high-speed operation entails
         an increase in the number of operators. For example, in Spain, the tender of Spanish
         high-speed infrastructure manager ADIF for operations across various corridors in
         Spain attracted bids from six operators. In the end, ADIF awarded concessions to
         three suppliers (Renfe, Rielsfera and ILSA), which plan to source trains from three
         different suppliers (Talgo, Alstom, and Bombardier (with Hitachi).411
(400) Pursuant to the Fourth Railway Package, national and regional authorities will be
         required (subject to a few exceptions) to publicly tender rail public service operation
         contracts, which represents an important change from the current situation where
         many such contracts are directly awarded without a tender. The Notifying Party
         states that the Fourth Railway Package is expected to be implemented in all Member
         States during the course of 2020 (with several Member States having already
         implemented it in 2019). The Fourth Railway Package is expected to increase
         competition for very high-speed operation across the EU.
(401) According to the Notifying Party, the ongoing liberalisation will create new
         opportunities for various very high-speed corridors across different Member States.
         It expects that these opportunities will attract interest from both national incumbent
         operators, public operators running private operation (such as Trenitalia in Spain and
         France (through its subsidiary Thello), SNCF and Italo), and purely private operators
         (such as ILSA, NTV, FlixBus/FlixTrain). The Notifying Party claims that the
         increase in the number of different operators will in turn increase competition for the
         supply of very high-speed rolling stock to the new operators.
(402) The Notifying Party claims that all suppliers will benefit from the liberalisation as it
         will lead to the emergence of new opportunities and new entrants seeking to
         purchase new very high-speed rolling stock.412 According to the Notifying Party,
         most of these new customers have not previously purchased rolling stock and have a
         strong focus on the overall cost of the rolling stock solution. For private operator in
         particular, the price of the platform procured is of critical importance, because most
         of them have limited resources and seek to enter the very high-speed market
         following a disruptive low-cost strategy.413
(403) The Notifying Party therefore claims that liberalisation will render markets more
         competitive and increase price competition between the numerous rolling stock
         suppliers active in Europe.414
         (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(404) The Fourth Railway Package is designed to complete the single market for rail
         services (also called Single European Railway Area).415 It aims at boosting the
411 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 228.
412 For instance, the Parties faced CAF, Talgo, and Siemens for EcoRail’s order in Spain (postponed) and
    expect to face at least those three suppliers in the upcoming [Information based on market intelligence]
    (Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 239).
413 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 236.
414 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 240.
415 The Fourth Railway Package is a set of six legislative texts designed to complete the single market for
    Rail services. Its goal is to revitalise the rail sector and make it more competitive vis-à-vis other modes of
    transport. It comprises two pillars: (i) the “technical pillar” adopted in April 2016 and (ii) the “market
                                                               77
 ---pagebreak---          competitiveness of the railway sector by reducing costs and administrative burden
         for railway undertakings wishing to operate across Europe.
(405) However, the impact of the liberalisation of the railway sector on the structure of the
         market for the supply of very high-speed rolling stock remains uncertain. Contrary to
         the Notifying Party’s view, several features of the markets for very high-speed
         rolling stock may particularly favour suppliers with a strong track in the context of
         liberalization.
(406) In that regard, examples of past awards indicate that suppliers offering very high-
         speed solutions with a strong track record, in particular the Parties, are the preferred
         suppliers of non-incumbent railway operators, whether these operators are public or
         private operators.
(407) First, public operators are involved in the operation of liberalised very high-speed
         corridors and bid, directly or through a dedicated subsidiary, for the attribution of
         new operational slots outside their historic footprint. Past examples show that public
         operators tend to foresee operations using trains that they already own or procure
         additional trains of the same type that they already have experience with in case of
         win.
(408) For example, as explained above, the Spanish high-speed infrastructure manager
         (Adif AV) awarded a slot for operation of the Spanish high-speed network to several
         operators, including ILSA. The Notifying Party explains that, after a simplified
         tendering process, ILSA initially chose Alstom’s [Confidential information on
         Alstom’s bidding strategy] as its preferred solution. However, before the signing of
         the contact with Alstom, the Italian operator Trenitalia acquired ILSA’s joint
         control.416 […], ILSA switched its procurement to the Hitachi/Bombardier’s Zefiro
         V300 platform. Trenitalia explained that their choice was driven by the Zefiro V300
         track-record and readiness to be operational. The Zefiro V300 is fully compliant with
         TSI and is already operating in Italy. Trenitalia further mentioned that the platform
         has a high-level reliability.417
(409) Likewise, Rielsfera, a subsidiary of SNCF, won another slot in the context of the
         same Adif tender. SNCF decided to rely on its existing fleet of Alstom Euroduplex
         trains and therefore asked Alstom to submit an offer to adapt these trains for
         operations in Spain.
(410) The sole example involving a private operator in the past 10 years lead to the same
         findings. In 2015, NTV issued a tender for the procurement of very high-speed trains
         for operations in Italy. Four bidders, namely Alstom, Hitachi, Talgo and Stadler
    pillar” adopted in December 2016. The technical pillar notably create a “one-stop-shop” acting as a single
    entry point for the multiple applications in the case of operations beyond one single Member State, ensure
    that the European Traffic Management System (ERTMS) equipment is interoperable and reduce the
    number of remaining national rules. The market pillar establishes the general right for railway
    undertakings established in one Member State to operate all types of passenger services everywhere in the
    EU, lays down rules aimed at improving impartiality in the governance of railway infrastructure and
    preventing discrimination and introduces the principle of mandatory tendering for public service contracts
    in rail.
416 Trenitalia has since acquired joint control over ILSA (cleared by the Commission on February 11, 2020
    (case M.9768)).
417 Reply of Trenitalia to RFI 13.
                                                           78
 ---pagebreak---         participated in the tender, which finally awarded Alstom. In addition, the Notifying
        Party explains that NTV previously issued another tender in 2006, also won by
        Alstom.418
(411) As a consequence, recent examples of tenders issued by railway companies acting in
        the context of liberalised operations tend to favour companies rolling stock suppliers
        with a track record, rather than new entrants.
(412) This is consistent with the results of the market investigation.
(413) Indeed, a majority of respondents consider that a prior track-record is one of the
        most important criteria for a private or public operator when selecting a supplier.419
(414) As a consequence, respondents to the market investigation consider that
        liberalisation of the railway sector will favour already strong very high-speed
        suppliers, in the foreseeable future. In that regard, a competitor indicated that
        ‘Although the liberalisation of railway operations in the EEA might have an impact
        on the market for the supply of VHS trains in the long run, CAF does not expect any
        real impact in the next 2-3 years. Private operators that will enter the market will
        tend to acquire those existing trains that are manufactured following the technical
        and regulatory requirements of each country. This situation will reinforce the
        position of those train manufacturers that are now active in a particular country and
        will make even more difficult the entrance of new players.’420 Likewise, a private
        customer indicated that ‘In the next few years, the VHS market could enlarge due to
        the potential entrance of new comers into different European countries, although,
        under a competitive point of view, there are still several barriers to entry related to
        the dominance of incumbent undertakings.’421
(415) It follows from the above that the liberalisation of the railway sector is unlikely to
        materially change the competitive structure and functioning of the markets for the
        supply of very high-speed rolling stock.
6.2.4. Conclusion
(416) For the reasons set out in section 6.2, and in light of the evidence made available
        during the investigation, the Commission considers that the Transaction raises
        serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of
        horizontal non-coordinated effects, either through the creation of strengthening of a
        dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective competition, in
        relation to the market for very high-speed rolling stock in the EEA (including
        Switzerland) and on a worldwide basis (excluding China, Japan and South Korea).
418 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 235.
419 Q1, replies to question 41; Q2, replies to question 43.
420 Q1, reply to question 51.
421 Q2, reply to question 56.
                                                            79
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.   Mainline trains
6.3.1. Introduction
(417) The Transaction leads to horizontally affected markets in the overall market for self-
       propelled mainline trains and possible segmentations at the EEA-wide level
       (including Switzerland), and at the national level in France, Germany, Italy and
       Sweden.
(418) The Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise concerns with respect
       to the market for self-propelled trains (and possible segmentations) at the EEA-wide
       level, including Switzerland. While the Parties’ combined market shares in the
       overall market for self-propelled trains (and possible segmentations) at the EEA-
       wide level will be high, the merged entity will continue to face competitors such as
       Stadler, Siemens, Hitachi, CAF, Skoda, Pesa, Newag, which have successfully
       expanded their activities outside of their home base and in several EEA Member
       States.
(419) The situation is markedly different at the national level, in particular in France and
       Germany, as explained in detail in the following sections.
6.3.2. The Parties' activities
         6.3.2.1. Alstom's activities
(420) Alstom’s main platform family for mainline transport is the Coradia. Alstom's
       Coradia platform family is used for commuter, regional, intercity and international
       traffic. Seven different Coradia platforms are offered in the EEA. They comprise
       EMUs (namely, Coradia Continental, Coradia Meridian, Coradia Nordic and Coradia
       Stream), a DMU (Coradia Lint) and a platform running on hydrogen fuel cells and
       Lithium-ion batteries (Coradia iLint). The Coradia Polyvalent/Liner platform is
       available in EMU and bimode.422 While Alstom [Confidential information on
       Alstom’s business strategy and product development].423
422 Bimode trains operate on both electrified and non-electrified lines.
423 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 46.
                                                         80
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                    X’Trapolis CityDuplex: an EMU platform that can operate at speeds of up
                       to 140 km/h. It is a hybrid platform combining single- and double-decker
                       cars and is manufactured specifically for suburban operation on the Ile-de-
                       France network in France (RER Lines D & E);432
                   SNCB M7: an EMU platform that can operate at speeds of up to 200
                       km/h. This double-decker train was originally manufactured in response to
                       the Belgian operator SNCB’s 2015 tender;433
                   ET430: an EMU platform that can operate at speeds of up to 140 km/h.
                       This single-decker train was manufactured specifically for a 2009
                       Deutsche Bahn project in Germany;434
                   MI 09: a double-deck EMU platform that can operate at speeds of up to
                       120 km/h. This train was manufactured in response to a 2009 project for
                       the Paris Regional Express Network (RER);
                   Rabe 525: an EMU platform that can operate at speeds between 140-160
                       km/h. This is a single-decker train sold in Switzerland.435
(423) The Notifying Party explains that Alstom does not have any other platforms
         developed in consortia or similar contractual arrangement with other suppliers.
         Similarly, Bombardier did not win any projects in consortium other than with
         Alstom.436
6.3.3. Market shares and methodology
           6.3.3.1. Market shares
         (A)         EEA-wide level
(424) The Parties are the leading suppliers of self-propelled mainline trains in the EEA, a
         market in which the Transaction leads to overlaps. The Transaction does not lead to
         overlaps with regard to locomotives and DMUs. As stated above, Bombardier has
         not supplied any DMU trains in the EEA in the last 10 years.
432 Alstom and Bombardier entered into a consortium agreement for this project on 31 January 2017. The
    agreement concerned the 2017 SNCF project with an order intake of approx. EUR […] and was concluded
    for such duration as is necessary to achieve its objectives. Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 50.
433 Alstom and Bombardier entered into a consortium agreement for this project on 14 September 2015. The
    agreement concerned the 2015 SNCB project with an order intake of approx. EUR […] and was
    concluded for such duration as is necessary to achieve its objectives. Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph
    50.
434 Although Alstom initially participated in the 2009 tender, organized by Deutsche Bahn for the supply of
    83 EMU units for the suburban railway Stuttgart, in consortium with Bombardier, the Parties renegotiated
    their roles still during the tender phase, and ultimately signed the contract with Alstom acting as a sub-
    supplier to Bombardier. Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 50.
435 BLS AG ordered 13 trains in 2006135 and Bern S-Bahn ordered 4 trains in 2011.
436 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraphs 52 and 53. In the past 10 years, Bombardier acted as a sub-contractor
    to Stadler in the context of the 2018 FGC project for […], which are part of Stadler’s Class 115
    contestable project for FGC, awarded in 2018. Bombardier’s contract value was limited to […]% of the
    total order intake which amounted to approx. EUR 100 million.
                                                            82
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---         Similarly, Bombardier’s standalone share for regional EMUs is [30-40]%. The same
        holds true for intercity EMUs. Discounting the consortia-related market share shows
        that only [50-60]% of the intercity EMU market in the EEA, including Switzerland
        will be impacted by the Transaction in 2010-2019.
(444) Therefore, the Notifying Party considers that historical market shares should only be
        nuanced in light of other factors, including the strong competition exercised by
        numerous rivals and bidding data which provides an overview of competitive
        constraints exercised at project level.441
(445) Third, the Notifying Party argues that market shares calculated by only taking into
        account sales from contestable tenders (thus excluding ‘non-contestable repeat
        orders from the Parties’ customers) show that the Parties have been less successful at
        winning new regional EMU projects. According to the Notifying Party, by
        combining non-contestable repeat orders with new contestable projects, the market
        shares do not adequately reflect the most recent competitive strengths of the Parties,
        nor of their competitors. It argues that a review of contestable regional EMU tenders
        would show that the Parties have been struggling to secure new orders. By contrast,
        Stadler, Hitachi, and CAF have won new projects.442
(446) Fourth, according to the Notifying Party, the Parties have experienced significant
        competitive constraints from various competitors in the past two years. The
        Notifying Party argues that while their combined market share appears significant
        over a ten-year period ([40-50]% regional EMUs and [60-70]% intercity EMUs),
        these shares do not adequately reflect the significant competitive pressure that the
        Parties have experienced over time and in particular, over the past two years. This is
        especially true for new contestable projects where the Parties have experienced
        fierce competition and which the Notifying Party considers to be a better reflection
        of competition post-Transaction than historic market shares. The Notifying Party
        argues that the Parties faced significant competition from the market leader Stadler,
        as well as Siemens, Hitachi, Skoda, Pesa, and Newag. While there are fewer intercity
        EMU tenders, the same development appears to hold true, with the Parties only
        accounting for [30-40]% of all order intake, and Alstom does not appear to have won
        any contestable regional intercity tender.443
(447) Fifth, the Notifying Party submits that it is challenging for Bombardier to exert
        significant competitive constraints due to (i) the significant financial challenges
        befalling the company over the past years and (ii) critical project-execution problems
        concerning the delivery of several mainline platforms.444 The Notifying Party asserts
441 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 60.
442 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraphs 61-62. In particular, the Parties together account for only [30-40]% of
    the contestable-only projects for regional EMUs in the past 10 years, compared to [40-50]% for all
    (contestable and non-contestable) projects. In contrast, Stadler is the market leader for new projects, with
    a market share of [20-30]%. Combined shares for contestable projects are even lower in the past two
    years, with the Parties accounting for only [20-30]% of the contestable projects in 2018-2019, well behind
    Stadler at [30-40]%.
443 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 64.
444 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraphs 66 and 67.
                                                          89
 ---pagebreak---         that contestable market shares show that Bombardier struggled to secure new
        contracts in the past two years.445
        (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(448) As a preliminary point, in accordance with the Commission's Horizontal Merger
        Guidelines,446 market shares are used as the starting point of the present competitive
        assessment. Furthermore, as the Commission already found in Siemens/Alstom,
        market shares do have value in assessing competitive positions in bidding
        markets.447 The Court's case-law thus recognises that the mere fact that a merger
        takes place on a bidding market, ‘does not mean that market shares are of virtually
        no value in assessing the strength of the various manufacturers […], especially
        where those shares remain relatively stable or reveal that one undertaking is tending
        to strengthen its position’.448
        (B.i)      Timeframe for the Commission’s assessment
(449) First, with regard to the appropriate timeframe for the assessment of the Transaction,
        the Notifying Party argues that calculating market shares over a period of 10 years
        overstates the Parties’ competitive position and does not reflect recent developments
        relevant for assessing the competitive dynamics in the market for mainline rolling
        stock (and possible segmentations). However, calculating market shares based on a
        more limited length of time restricts the underlying number of tenders to very few,
        with the consequent risk of providing a very distorted view of each players’
        competitive position. As established in previous Commission’s decisions, in markets
        characterised by lumpy demand, market shares should be analysed over several
        years.449
(450) In the present case, assessing the Transaction over a shorter period of time, i.e., 5
        years, would result in the exclusion of a large proportion of projects. The
        Commission thus considers that such an approach would not adequately reflect the
        structural impact that the Transaction brings about in the market for mainline rolling
        stock and possible segmentations because it excludes nearly half of the underlying
        number of tenders and repeat orders.
(451) In particular, the Commission observes that the market size in terms of order intake
        over a period of 5 years (2015-2019) represents [50-60]% of the market size in the
        period 2010-2019 in the overall market for mainline trains at the EEA-wide level
        (including Switzerland). The proportion is similar when considering possible
        segmentations of the overall market for self-propelled mainline trains: (i) [50-60]%
445 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 70.
446 Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings, paragraph 14.
447 Commission decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 179.
448 Judgement of 14 December 2005, General Electric v Commission, T-210/01, EU:T:2005:456, paragraphs
    149 and 150.
449 Commission decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 185.
                                                       90
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---       fluctuations over time are a normal feature of the market for mainline rolling stock,
      and do not necessarily constitute evidence of durable trends. In the present case,
      based on the Parties’ bidding data, the evolution of Bombardier’s sales appears to be
      a result not of any decreasing competitiveness, but of Deutsche Bahn’s cyclical
      procurement. Rolling stock have a long life-cycle, spanning several decades, and
      therefore lend themselves to cyclical demand as required by the gradual needs for the
      replacement of fleets. Indeed, Deutsche Bahn, the German market’s main customer,
      procured twice as many trains in the 2010-2014 period than in the subsequent 5
      years. Bombardier represented […]% of all Deutsche Bahn contracts over the 2010-
      2014 period.
(461) Over the past 5 years, the biggest winner of Deutsche Bahn contracts has been
      Alstom. Competitors appear to have been more successful with customers other than
      Deutsche Bahn. However, the time period examined (5 years) is too short to draw
      any conclusions as to any durable trend on the market. On the contrary, as per the
      Commission’s precedents in bidding markets, the assessment must be conducted on
      a longer time period to avoid erroneous analysis of evolution of the competitive
      significance of various bidders.
(462) Moreover, the Commission considers that, contrary to the Notifying Party’s
      suggestion, a competitive assessment of the Transaction over an even shorter period
      of time (2 years) unduly impairs any meaningful conclusions as to the Parties’ and
      their competitors’ market position. The value of order intake calculated over the
      period 2018-2019 represents [20-30]% of the value over of a period of 10 years in
      the overall market for self-propelled trains (and [10-20]% in the market for EMUs,
      [20-30]% in the market for regional trains, [30-40]% in the market for intercity
      trains) at the EEA-wide level, including Switzerland. In France, the market size over
      a period of 2 years is [20-30]% of the market size for the period 2010-2019 in the
      overall market for self-propelled trains ([20-30]% in the market for regional trains
      and [20-30]% in the market for EMUs). In Germany, the proportion is comparable
      ([10-20]% in the market for EMUs, [20-30]% in the overall market for self-propelled
      trains and in market for regional trains).
(463)  Given the lumpy nature of demand, long lifecycle of rolling stock products and
      cyclical nature of the procurement patterns of market’s the main customers, an
      assessment of competitive positions over a mere two years period cannot be
      considered sufficiently representative and risks, on the contrary, rely on a grossly
      distorted overview of the Parties’ and their competitors’ position. Therefore, the
      Commission will base its assessment on the Parties’ and their competitors’ market
      shares over the period 2010-2019.
      (B.ii)    Contestable and non-contestable orders
(464) The Notifying Party argues that market shares based on contestable shares represent
      the competitive dynamics in the market for mainline rolling stock and the increasing
      competitive pressure that the Parties’ competitors exert more accurately. However,
      as already found by the Commission in Siemens/Alstom, orders that were awarded to
      a given supplier by a customer via a repeat order (thus without going through a
      competitive tender) provide an important insight into the Parties’ competitive
      strength. Disregarding non-contestable/repeat orders would unduly favour the Parties
      and underestimate their competitive position in the market for self-propelled rolling
      stock and possible segmentations.
                                                 93
 ---pagebreak--- (465) As established in previous decisions, the Commission considers that non-contestable
         orders contribute to a supplier's competitive position. They contribute to establishing
         a supplier's track-record of manufacturing and delivering certain types of trains and
         therefore constitute references which suppliers can leverage in other calls for
         tenders. Furthermore, they contribute to supporting large investment in R&D,
         engineering, development and manufacturing capacity which are important
         contributors to a supplier's strength when bidding for tenders. Therefore, non-
         contestable awards do reflect a position in relation to a long-standing customer
         relationship, often initially obtained in a competitive process.451
(466) The advantages resulting from long-standing customer relationships are relevant to
         the competitive assessment. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Parties
         have the largest installed base in the EEA, including Switzerland, as well as in
         France and Germany and have been long standing suppliers of some of the national
         rail operators in these countries, namely SNCF and Deutsche Bahn. A quantitative
         assessment reinforces the conclusion that non-contestable/repeat orders generate a
         significant competitive advantage for the Parties and are a strong evidence of their
         leading market position.
(467) Non-contestable/repeat orders represent a significant proportion of the total market
         size. At the EEA-wide level, including Switzerland, non-contestable/repeat orders
         represent [30-40]% of the total demand in the market for EMUs and [30-40]% in the
         overall market for mainline rolling stock in the period 2010-2019. Furthermore, the
         Parties benefit from more non-contestable/repeat orders than their competitors. At
         the EEA-wide level, including Switzerland, the Parties account for [60-70]% of all
         non-contestable/repeat orders in the market for EMUs and [60-70]% in the overall
         market for mainline trains, well ahead of their competitors (Stadler: [20-30]%,
         Siemens: [0-5]%, Hitachi: [5-10]%, CAF: [0-5]%, Newag: [0-5]%).452 As a result, a
         competitive assessment solely focused on contestable market shares would
         underestimate the Parties’ competitive strength and disproportionately inflate their
         competitors’ market position.
(468) The Commission considers that non-contestable/repeat orders have a significant
         effect of entrenching the Parties’ established position and raising barriers to entry in
         France and Germany. In France, the proportion of repeat orders out of the total order
         intake is [70-80]% in the overall market for self-propelled mainline trains and the
         Parties account for all of them. In the market for EMUs in France, non-
         contestable/repeat orders account for [70-80]% (and [70-80]% in the market for
         regional trains) of the total order intake and the Parties were awarded [90-100]% of
         the repeat orders (and all repeat orders in the market for regional trains). In the
         market for regional EMUs, the proportion of repeat/non-contestable orders is similar
         ([70-80]%) and the Parties accounted for all of them.
(469) In Germany, non-contestable/repeat orders constitute [10-20]% of the overall market
         for mainline rolling stock, the market for regional trains and the market for regional
         EMUs and [20-30]% of the market for EMUs. The Parties accounted for the vast
451 Commission decision in case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 216-220.
452 In the market for EMUs at the EEA-wide level in the period 2010-2019. The figures in the overall market
    for mainline rolling stock are comparable: Stadler: [20-30]%, Siemens: [0-5]%, Hitachi: [5-10]%, CAQ:
    [0-5]%, Newag: [0-5]%.
                                                         94
 ---pagebreak---         majority of such orders ([90-100]% in the market for EMUs and [90-100]% in the
        overall market for self-propelled trains, and in the markets for regional trains and
        regional EMUs).
(470) Therefore, the Commission considers that calculating market shares on the basis of
        total order intake is informative because it allows taking into account the significant
        competitive advantages that the Parties’ installed base and longstanding customers
        relationships confer.
        (B.iii)    Bombardier’s financial difficulties and their impact on its ability to compete
(471) The Notifying Party argues that assessing the competitive effects of the Transaction
        over a shorter period of time, instead on the basis of historical market shares also
        demonstrates that it is challenging for Bombardier to exert significant competitive
        constraints as indicated above.
(472) Pursuant to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, ‘In assessing the competitive effects
        of a merger, the Commission compares the competitive conditions that would result
        from the notified merger with the conditions that would have prevailed without the
        merger’.453 Therefore, when assessing the competitive constraint exerted by
        Bombardier, in the context of recent financial difficulties or project execution
        problems concerning the delivery of several mainline platforms, the Commission has
        to take into account the counterfactual scenario absent the merger.
(473) In assessing the competitive impact of a concentration, of particular relevance may
        be the issue of whether, without the concentration, the relevant business and assets
        would exit the market. In that context, ‘the Commission may decide that an
        otherwise problematic merger is nevertheless compatible with the [internal] market
        if one of the merging parties is a failing firm. The basic requirement is that the
        deterioration of the competitive structure that follows the merger cannot be said to
        be caused by the merger. This will arise where the competitive structure of the
        market would deteriorate to at least the same extent in the absence of the merger.454
(474) According to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines and the relevant case law, three
        criteria are especially relevant in determining whether an entity is to be regarded as a
        ‘failing firm’:
            i.   First, the allegedly failing firm would in the near future be forced out of the
                 market because of financial difficulties if not taken over by another
                 undertaking (first criterion);
           ii.   Second, there is no less anti-competitive alternative purchase than the
                 notified merger (second criterion);
          iii.   Third, in the absence of a merger, the assets of the failing firm would
                 inevitably exit the market (third criterion).
453 Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings, paragraph 9.
454 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 89. See also: judgment of 31 March 1998, France and Others v
    Commission (Kali & Salz), C-68/94 and C-30/95, EU:C:1998:148, paragraph 110.
                                                       95
 ---pagebreak--- (475) It is for the Notifying Party to provide in due time all the relevant information
        necessary to demonstrate that the expected deterioration of the competitive structure
        that follows the merger would not be caused by the merger.455
(476) The Commission notes that the Notifying Party does not seek to rely on the failing
        firm defence set out in Section VIII of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines. In
        particular, the Notifying Party has not argued nor presented specific evidence that
        the three criteria, mentioned above are met.
(477) The Notifying Party rather argues that, absent the Transaction Bombardier’s
        financial situation may deteriorate and adversely affect its ability to compete. The
        Commission notes that, to be able to preclude competition concerns, the alleged
        possible exit of Bombardier would have to meet the criteria referred to in paragraph
        (474), with all the relevant information to be provided by the Parties.
(478)    The Commission thus assesses the Transaction under the premise that Bombardier
        would not in the near future be forced to exit the market due to financial difficulties
        and competition will continue under current conditions. For the purpose of this
        decision, and absent a failing firm defence invoked by the Notifying Party, the
        Commission considers that Bombardier’s mainline rolling stock assets must be
        considered viable. The Commission thus concludes that, absent the Transaction,
        Bombardier will either continue to compete on a stand-alone basis or it would be
        acquired by another market player. This would result in preserving and reinforcing
        Bombardier’s current assets, contracts, products in development and its competitive
        position on the market. Therefore, for the purpose of the present assessment the
        Commission assesses the competitive constrain exerted by Bombardier in view of its
        market shares and competitive position on the market for self-propelled mainline
        trains and possible segmentations.
        (B.iv)    Consortia
(479) In line with the approach adopted in Bombardier/ADTranz and Siemens/Alstom, the
        Commission considers that market shares including consortia are indicative of the
        Parties’ competitive position. In Bombardier/ADTranz, the Commission noted that
        ‘in many cases companies submit bids as part of consortia. In the case of consortia,
        this decision regards the prime contractor as the winner of the contract; but market
        shares are attributed to the other members of the consortium according to their
        share in that consortium’.456
(480) Following this approach, the Commission considers that, for the purpose of this
        decision, market shares should be allocated based on the contribution of each
        consortium partner. Therefore, in the remainder of this decision, unless otherwise
        indicated, the Commission refers to market shares of the Parties and their
        competitors calculated on this basis.
(481) The Commission nevertheless also notes that the Parties’ market shares including
        and excluding consortia do not materially differ such that market shares excluding
        consortia would lead to a different conclusion regarding the Parties’ combined
        market shares as demonstrated below.
455 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 91.
456 Commission decision in case M.2139 - Bombardier/ADTranz, (2001), paragraph 41.
                                                     96
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---         (B)         The Commission's assessment
(486) Based on the market shares presented in section 6.3.2.1, the Parties’ main
        competitors are the following.
(487) Stadler is the 2nd largest mainline train supplier in the EEA. It has two regional
        platforms, called GTW and Wink. Stadler has two platforms that operate as both
        regional and intercity trains, called Flirt and Kiss. In the EEA, Stadler has sold
        regional trains in Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg,
        the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. In
        addition, Stadler received repeat orders in Finland and Norway based on initial
        contracts awarded before 2010.458
(488) Siemens is the 4th largest mainline train supplier at the EEA-wide level, including
        Switzerland, and in Germany. Siemens offers two main train platforms for mainline
        transport: Mireo and Desiro. The Desiro family includes four EMU platforms.
        Siemens' EMUs include two platform specifically designed for the UK market,
        called Desiro City and Desiro Verve. Its other EMUs are called Desiro ML and
        HC.459 Siemens has sold trains in Germany, UK, Austria and Hungary.460
(489) Hitachi is the 5th largest mainline train supplier and 2nd largest in the UK. Hitachi has
        regional platforms, called Caravaggio and TSR, and intercity platforms, called
        AT300 and AT200. In the EEA, Hitachi has sold intercity trains in the UK and
        Italy.461
(490) CAF is the 6th largest mainline train suppliers and 4th largest supplier of regional
        DMUs. It has a regional platform, called Civity with 5 declinations (UK, Nordic,
        Duo, XL, and Max). In the EEA, CAF’s trains have been sold in France, Italy, the
        Netherlands, and the UK. CAF also markets another Civity platform capable of a
        maximum speed of 200 km/h, which has been sold in the UK. Its intercity platform
        is Comfort 200.462
(491) Skoda is the largest supplier in Czechia. It has two regional platforms (InterPanter
        and CityElefant), and an intercity platform, called RegioPanter. Skoda also has won
        projects in Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia and has bid for projects in Germany,
        Hungary, and Slovenia.
(492) Other Eastern European manufacturers Pesa (Poland) and Newag (Poland) are
        mostly active in regional rolling stock (Pesa has three regional platforms,
        respectively, and Newag has two).
(493) Talgo is a recent entrant in the regional EMU market with its platform VitTal. Its
        bidding activities include tenders in Spain and Latvia. 463 Talgo has not won any
        contracts with its EMU platform yet.
458 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 73 and table 9.
459 Form CO, Chapter B.2, table 11.
460 Parties’ CPL. According to its non-confidential submission of 21 April 2020, Siemens sold regional trains
    in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. See footnote 31.
461 Form CO, Chapter B.2, table 13 and Parties’ CPL.
462 Form CO, Chapter B.2, table 12 and Parties’ CPL.
463 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraphs 94-95.
                                                        98
 ---pagebreak--- (494) Finally, Asian manufacturers have a negligible presence in Europe. CRRC has been
         awarded a contract for 3 regional trains by the Czech private operator Leo Express in
         2016, albeit not through an open tender procedure. CRRC has had limited and
         unsuccessful bidding activities since then (2016 Ferrovie Nord Milano tender).
         Hyundai Rotem has unsuccessfully bid for three contestable regional EMU projects
         in the EEA in the past 10 years.
(495) The Commission notes that at the EEA-wide level, suppliers are active in several of
         countries outside of their home base. Some suppliers such as Stadler and Siemens
         expressed the view that they could participate in a tender for self-propelled mainline
         trains in any country of the EEA. 464
(496) Siemens bid for mainline rolling stock contracts in Germany, Austria, the UK, the
         Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Hungary, Denmark and Belgium. The geographic
         scope of Stadler’s activities is wider, with participations in tenders in Switzerland,
         Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Hungary,
         Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Luxembourg, Sweden and Norway. In its response to
         the market investigation, Hitachi also stated that it can participate in tenders across
         the EEA as it ‘can rely on the availability of self-propelled mainline product
         platforms with limited design evolution able to meet the specific EEA market
         requirements’.465 However, as evidenced by Hitachi’s participation over the last 10
         years, it appears that in fact it bid in tenders in a limited number of countries.466
(497) The Commission notes that in the last 10 years Stadler won contracts in Germany,
         Austria, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Italy, Spain, the UK, Sweden, Finland,
         the Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg; Siemens in Germany, Austria, and the
         UK; CAF in Spain, UK, Italy, the Netherlands, France (1 project); Hitachi in Italy
         and the UK. Talgo, for its part, has so far not succeeded in entering the market for
         regional trains or EMUs despite bidding in several countries.467
(498) The bidding analysis shows that while in recent years competitors such as Stadler,
         Hitachi, and CAF have increased their market shares, they win fewer tenders in
         countries where the Parties are active and high barriers to entry have been identified
         (i.e., France and Germany).
(499) In France, CAF participated in 3 (out of 5) contestable tenders. As specified in
         section 6.3.4.3, CAF succeeded in winning […] with SNCF for the supply of
         intercity trains (a market where the Parties’ activities do not overlap) more than a
         decade after acquiring a manufacturing site in France. Stadler participated in a single
         tender held by the Hello Paris consortium, which was ultimately awarded to Alstom
         with the Coradia Polyvalent platform in 2019.468 Based on the Parties’ CPL, Siemens
         and Hitachi did not take part in any tenders in the last 10 years.
464  Q3, replies to question 37.
465  Hitachi’s response to Q3, question 37.
466 Hitachi participated in tenders in the last ten years in Italy, the UK, Norway Austria. See Hitachi’s
     response to Q3, question 36. According to the Parties’ CPL, Hitachi also participated in a tenders in
     Germany.
467 The Parties’ CPL.
468 The Parties’ CPL.
                                                        99
 ---pagebreak--- (500) With regard to Germany, Hitachi and CAF, which have increased their market shares
       in other countries of the EEA, were not successful in winning any contestable
       tenders. Hitachi participated in 1 tender in Germany for a regional EMU trains but
       lost to Bombardier and CAF bid in 3 tenders and lost to Alstom, Bombardier and
       Stadler, respectively. The only players that achieved wins in Germany are the
       Parties, Stadler and Siemens.
(501) Central and Eastern European suppliers are currently unable to surpass barriers to
       entry in Western European countries, including France and Germany. Suppliers such
       as Skoda, Pesa and Newag rarely compete in Western Europe due to higher technical
       and financial requirements, while the Parties do not compete in countries where
       these suppliers are very active (Central and Eastern Europe). Based on the Parties’
       CPL data, Alstom and Bombardier [Information on the Parties’ sales data] i.e.,
       countries in which the Central and Eastern European suppliers have a strong
       foothold. By contrast, the bidding analysis demonstrates that Skoda won contracts in
       the last 10 years in Czechia, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania; Pesa in Poland,
       Czechia, and a DMU project in Germany; Newag in Poland and Italy.
(502) Central and Eastern European suppliers are nevertheless expanding their activities.
       For instance, over the past 10 years, Newag won two contracts in Italy. Skoda, for its
       part, placed bids in five EMU tenders in Germany (including once in consortium
       with Alstom), but lost all opportunities to Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens. Pesa
       placed four unsuccessful bids in Italy and two bids in Germany in the same period.
(503) To this date, Central and Eastern European suppliers have managed to achieve a few
       sales in lower end mainline rolling stock products in Germany. In 2013 and 2014,
       Deutsche Bahn ordered Pesa Link regional train under a framework agreement for
       470 trains. However, due to difficulties in acquiring the necessary authorisations,
       Deutsche Bahn only ordered 73 trains and cancelled the larger part of the framework
       agreement. Deutsche Bahn ordered trains from Alstom to compensate for the
       shortfall.469
(504) For its part, Skoda explains having won a Deutsche Bahn / DB Regio contract for six
       locomotive-hauled intercity trains in 2014 in Germany (against Siemens and
       Bombardier). Skoda notes that ‘[a]lthough it is usually very hard for a medium-sized
       supplier like Skoda to sell rolling stock in Germany (due to German homologation
       requirements and herewith connected need for pre-development)), for this tender
       Deutsche Bahn set out specific customisation requirements and quantity, so that only
       a limited number of suppliers were interested to participate. Skoda considers that
       the special conditions of this tender allowed Skoda to enter the German market.’470
(505) However, the Commission does not consider that these sales can be construed as
       evidence that Newag, Pesa or Skoda are likely entrants in the market for EMUs in
       France or Germany. Both Pesa’s and Skoda’s experience in Germany illustrate the
       fact that complex homologation requirement in combination with high upfront
       investment borne by the supplier pending homologation constitutes a barrier to enter
       the German market. It is therefore similarly unlikely that these suppliers will succeed
469 Non-confidential submission of Siemens, 22 April 2020, paragraph 32.
470 Minutes of conference call with Skoda of 6 May 2020.
                                                       100
 ---pagebreak---         in entering the French market characterised by high barriers to entry (and where
        these players did not participate in any tenders).
(506) This conclusion is supported by the results of the market investigation. Competitors
        do not consider that Eastern European suppliers (Skoda, Pesa, and Newag) can
        currently successfully bid in large EMU tenders elsewhere in the EEA.471 This is due
        to, among other things, complex technical requirements and demanding engineering
        capabilities, authorisation requirements, and the lack of commercial references.472
        For example, according to Siemens, ‘it is not foreseeable that CEE suppliers will
        become competitive in France’.473
(507) This is confirmed by customers, the majority of which do not consider that Skoda,
        Pesa and Newag can currently compete with the Parties.474 Alpha Trains (which
        operates in Germany and France) confirms that this is due to barriers to entry
        relating to timely homologation, technical standards and compliance with ‘Western
        European market demands’.475 For its part, NS (the Dutch national rail operator)
        indicated that these suppliers currently lack of ability to supply the requested
        volumes in a tender.476
(508) Respondents estimated that it will take Central and Eastern European competitors
        more than 3 years to become credible bidders elsewhere in the EEA.477 As a result,
        Central and Eastern European suppliers will be not able to compensate for the loss of
        competition generated by the Transaction within a time period compatible with the
        protection of effective competition. This is particularly true for countries where high
        barriers to entry have been identified that Central and Eastern European suppliers are
        unlikely to be able to overcome given current market conditions (France and
        Germany).
(509) Finally, Talgo has bid with its recently introduced EMU platform in Spain, Latvia
        and Lithuania but has not yet successfully entered the market for EMU or regional
        trains.478 In 2019, Talgo was awarded a frame contract with Deutsche Bahn in 2019
        for push pull trains to operate at speed above 160 km/h. Even though it has
        participated in tenders and established local manufacturing facilities in Germany,
        until 2019 it did not succeed in winning any other tenders. Talgo’s very limited
        activities in the markets for EMUs and regional trains demonstrate that it is not
        currently a credible competitive constraint in these markets. Similarly, to Skoda and
        Pesa, Talgo’s difficulties in entering the German market demonstrate that there are
        high barriers to entry.
(510) Finally, Asian suppliers such as CRRC or Hyundai Rotem do not exercise material
        competitive constraints in the EEA (and therefore in any country in the EEA). As far
        as CRRC is concerned, the Chinese supplier only has a negligible presence in
471 Q3, replies to question 41.
472 Q3, replies to question 41.1.
473 Siemens’ response to Q3, question 41.1.
474 Q4, replies to 30.6-30.9.
475 Alpha Trains’ response to Q4, question 31.1.
476 NS’ response to Q4, question 31.1.
477 Q3, replies to question 41.2; Q4, replies to question 31.2.
478 Talgo was initially awarded the order in a tender for regional EMUs in Latvia but the order was later
    overturned on appeal by Skoda.
                                                           101
 ---pagebreak---         Czechia where its market share stems from a single win in September 2019 for the
        supply of Regional EMUs to the Czech private operator Leo Express. However,
        CRRC faces significant barriers to entry and expansion in other countries in the EEA
        due to complex homologation process (and complying with TSI and national
        certification requirements), lack of commercial references, and customer
        preferences. According to CRRC, “having achieved homologation in Czechia would
        not aide CRRC’s participation in tenders in other European countries because the
        homologation process is very different in each tender/project/country”.479 In
        CRRC’s view, this is also evidenced by the fact that it has not and is not currently
        participating in any other tenders/projects for the supply of mainline trains in
        Europe.480 The Commission however notes that based on the Parties’ CPL, CRRC
        participated in tenders in the UK and Austria.481
(511) Customers that expressed a view stated that CRRC was either not a candidate in their
        tenders or it attempted to pre-qualify but was not successful.482 SBB explained that
        ‘CRRC are not capable yet to offer products which comply with the European
        regulation and / or national requirements in combination with a European reference
        project’.483
(512) Suppliers considered that it will take CRRC more than 5 years to become a credible
        bidder for self-propelled mainline train tenders in other countries than Czechia in the
        EEA.484 CRRC estimates that it will take a very long time (more than 10-20 years)
        before it can credibly compete for rolling stock projects (both high speed and
        mainline trains) elsewhere in Europe.485
(513) For its part, Hyundai Rotem is currently not active in the EEA.486 The results of the
        market investigation also demonstrated that Hyundai Rotem is currently not
        perceived as a credible competitor in the EEA and did not participate in the tenders
        organised by responding customers.487 Hyundai Rotem faces the same barriers to
        entry as other non-European suppliers such as CRRC.
(514) In view of the above, the Commission considers that at the EEA-wide level,
        including Switzerland, the number of suppliers remaining after the Transaction will
        be sufficient to maintain effective competition post-Transaction. Thus at the EEA-
        wide level, post-Transaction the Parties will continue to face significant competitive
        constraints from Stadler, Siemens, Hitachi, CAF, and the Central European players
        (Skoda, Pesa and Newag).
479 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with CRRC, 27 May 2020, paragraph 4. The Commission
    notes that CRRC entered the market for shunting locomotives in Germany already before its acquisition of
    the German company Vossloh (by obtaining a contract with Deutsche Bahn). Thus, the acquisition of
    Vossloh and establishing local presence did not in any way facilitate CRRC’s entry in the German market
    for locomotives. However, CRRC would not be able to leverage its activities in locomotives to win
    contracts in other mainline rolling stock mainly because Vossloh’s activities and resources are limited to
    shunting locomotives.
480 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with CRRC, 27 May 2020, paragraph 4.
481 Parties’ CPL.
482 Q4, replies to question 45.
483 SBB’s response to Q4, question 45.1.
484 Q3, replies to question 59.4.
485 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with CRRC, 27 May 2020, paragraph 6.
486 Non-confidential email of 29 June 2020.
487 Q4, replies to question 29.6.
                                                         102
 ---pagebreak--- (515) By contrast, in France, the number of credible competitors is very limited, i.e., to the
        Parties and CAF. The Commission however notes that CAF only won a 2019
        contract with SNCF under which it has not yet delivered the rolling stock.
(516) In Germany, the credible competitors in the market for self-propelled trains (and
        possible segmentations) are limited to a small group of suppliers. While a number of
        smaller competitors participated in few tenders (e.g., Hitachi, CAF, Skoda, Pesa), the
        only suppliers that achieved any wins are the Parties, Stadler and Siemens.
        Therefore, the Commission considers that the Transaction will eliminate the
        particularly significant competitive constraint existing between the Parties, while
        barriers to entry are likely to prevent that loss from being offset by the prospect of a
        timely entry able to maintain effective competition in the market for self-propelled
        mainline trains.
(517) Furthermore, according to the results of the market investigation, the Transaction
        will negatively impact competitors’ ability to win contracts or will affect their
        incentive to participate in tenders against the Parties, thus reducing the overall
        competitive outcome of tenders in countries where the Parties have a strong
        competitive position such as France and Germany.488
(518) Suppliers’ decision to participate in tenders depends not only on their existing
        products and perceived competitiveness in a given tender but also on the
        participation of competitors. Competitors almost unanimously indicated that their
        decision to participate in tenders is influenced by the identity of the competitors they
        are facing. The market investigation confirms that competitors may decide not to
        participate in tenders if competing suppliers have significant advantages in terms of
        local manufacturing footprint or long-standing customer relationships.489 In
        particular, the participation of Alstom and Bombardier discourages rivals from
        competing in tenders in countries where they are established and have a significant
        presence.490 By that measure, the merged entity will have significant advantages in
        future tenders due to combined a wider range of homologated platforms and larger
        manufacturing footprint, thus making it more difficult for other suppliers to compete
        in France and Germany.
(519) The Commission thus considers that the Transaction will prevent competitors from
        expanding their activities or entering the market for self-propelled mainline trains
        (and possible segmentations) in France and Germany.
          6.3.4.2. Closeness of competition
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s views
(520) The Notifying Party considers that both participation data and the win/loss analysis
        show that the Parties have not most frequently faced (or lost to) each other in
        contestable mainline EMU tenders. Instead, each faced and was more constrained by
        the presence of other rivals. The Notifying Party therefore argues that the
488 Q3, replies to questions 56 and 56.3
489 Q3, replies to questions 56 and 56.1.
490 Q3, replies to question 56.2.
                                                   103
 ---pagebreak---         Transaction will not remove each Party’s closest competitor but that the merged
        entity will continue to be constrained by a range of well-established competitors.491
        (B)       The Commission’s assessment
(521) Bidding data shows that, in mainline rolling stock, Alstom and Bombardier belong to
        a small group of close competitors and the Parties are among the top 2 or 3 bidders
        in tenders in which they participated.
(522) This is particularly true at the national level. In terms of tender participation, the
        Commission noted the following:
        (a)     In France, Alstom’s most frequent competitor in the overall mainline rolling
                stock market is CAF ([50-60]%), with Bombardier in second position ([20-
                30]%). In regional EMUs, Alstom’s most frequent competitor was
                Bombardier, participating in [60-70]% of tenders, followed by CAF ([30-
                40]%) and Stadler ([30-40]%) in the period 2010-2019. With regard to
                intercity trains, Alstom competed against CAF (Bombardier did not bid) in
                the only contestable tender awarded to CAF;
        (b)     In Germany, in all tenders for regional EMUs, Alstom most often competed
                against Stadler ([70-80]%), Bombardier ([50-60]%), and Siemens ([30-
                40]%), and CAF ([30-40]%), and to a lesser extent Skoda ([10-20]%), Pesa
                ([0-10]%). Bombardier most frequently competed against Alstom ([70-
                80]%), followed by Stadler ([60-70]%), Siemens ([40-50]%), and CAF ([30-
                40]%). In very few tenders where Bombardier competed also Hitachi ([0-
                10]%), Skoda ([0-10]%), and Pesa ([0-10]%) participated. However, in
                tenders held by Deutsche Bahn, the only bidders are the Parties, Stadler and
                Siemens.
(523) Although participation provide useful indications, when conducting this type of
        analysis, as the Commission explained in Siemens/Alstom, a firm that participates
        often but never wins is less credible as a competitive alternative and thus exercises
        less significant constraint than a firm that participates and wins.492 Winning statistics
        show that the Parties constitute each other’s most significant competitive constraint
        or are among a small group of close competitors:
        (a)     In France, the Parties lost no tenders to any supplier other than CAF (in
                intercity rolling stock, a market in which the Parties’ activities do not
                overlap);
        (b)     In Germany, the Parties most often lost against Stadler. Alstom lost more
                tenders to Siemens than Bombardier, while Bombardier lost more tenders to
                Alstom than to Siemens. Moreover, the Commission notes that the Parties
                won the majority of contestable tenders organized by Deutsche Bahn in the
                last 10 years (Alstom - […] and Bombardier – […], out of […]). In addition,
491 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 117.
492 Siemens/Alstom, at paragraph 408.
                                                   104
 ---pagebreak---                   Bombardier accounts for nearly […] repeat orders placed by Deutsche Bahn
                  in the period 2010-2014.493
(524) As a result, the bidding analysis confirms the strong competitive constraints that the
         Parties currently exert on one another in France. Despite their participation in tenders
         against Alstom, no competitor other than Bombardier has had any success, with the
         sole exception of CAF. CAF won […] against Alstom, in the intercity market
         segment, in which Bombardier did not participate. CAF represents no more than [5-
         10]% of the French market for mainline trains, the rest being in the Parties’ hands. It
         follows that Alstom and Bombardier are particularly close competitors in France.
(525) In Germany, bidding data shows that the Parties only face two other credible bidders
         that have won contracts in Germany: Stadler and Siemens. Even if other suppliers
         participated in tenders, they have not been successful and do not currently exercise a
         significant competitive constraint in Germany. Furthermore, the number of bidders
         in the large-scale, complex tenders held by Deutsche Bahn is limited to the Parties,
         Stadler and Siemens. The Parties are thus among the top 2-3 bidders in Germany and
         form part of a small group of four close competitors. More specifically, in regional
         EMUs (the only type of EMU procured in Germany over the past 10 years), Alstom
         currently exercises a particularly significant competitive constraint on Bombardier.
         Out of all Deutsche Bahn tenders in the 2010-2019 period, Alstom and Stadler were
         Bombardier’s most frequent competitors (participating in [60-70]% of tenders in
         which Bombardier participated). Out of the tenders in which Bombardier
         participated, it most often lost tenders to Alstom and Siemens (c. [30-40]% of
         Bombardier’s lost tenders, respectively). As a result, Alstom represents the highest
         combined participation and win rate against Bombardier. Together, the Parties
         represent […]% of the value of Deutsche Bahn tenders for regional EMUs in the
         2010-2019.
(526) Deutsche Bahn’s procurement further confirms that the Parties remain very
         competitive in larger projects (both evidenced by winning rates in contestable
         tenders and repeat orders), well ahead of Stadler and Siemens s. As a result, they
         exercise a particularly important competitive constraint on one another. The
         Transaction therefore reduces the number of credible competitors in Germany from 4
         to 3 in a market where high barriers to entry were identified and will eliminate the
         particularly close competitive relationship existing between the Parties.
(527) According to the results of the market investigation, on an EEA-wide basis, the
         majority of respondents either confirmed that the Parties are each other’s main
         competitors or part of a group of close competitors that mainly also includes Stadler
         and Siemens as well as, in certain instances, CAF and Hitachi.494
(528) Accordingly, customers indicate that the participation of Alstom in past or current
         tenders had an impact on their ability to obtain better condition from Bombardier,
         Stadler, Siemens and, to a lesser extent, CAF and Hitachi. Similarly, customers
         indicate that the participation of Bombardier in past or current tenders had an impact
493 As stated in Section 6.3.3.2, Deutsche Bahn, the German market’s main customer, procured twice as much
    trains in the 2010-2014 period than in the subsequent 5 years. Bombardier represented […]% of all
    Deutsche Bahn contracts over the 2010-2014 period.
494 Q3, replies to question 40.1; Q4, replies to question 28.2.
                                                           105
 ---pagebreak---         on their ability to obtain better condition from: Alstom, Siemens, Stadler, CAF and
        Hitachi.495
(529) Therefore, the Commission considers that at the EEA-wide level, the Parties, face
        Stadler, Siemens, CAF and Hitachi. In light of the results of the bidding data, the
        scope of close competitors is significantly smaller in France and Germany. In
        France, the merging Parties are the closest competitors. Indeed, they are the sole
        competitors in regional rolling stock and face fringe competition from CAF in
        intercity rolling stock. In Germany, the merging Parties are the closest competitors in
        relation to Deutsche Bahn, the country’s rail operator. On the global German market,
        they are part of a group of four close competitors, that also includes Stadler and
        Siemens. No other supplier exercises a material competitive constraint on the
        Germany market.
          6.3.4.3. Barriers to entry
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s views
(530) The Notifying Party submits that any barriers to entry do not prevent expansion
        within the EEA for existing rolling stock suppliers active in other markets. In the
        Notifying Party’s view, the EEA-wide markets for regional and intercity EMUs are
        fast-growing and, as such, attract various entry and expansion both from existing
        European players such as Talgo and CAF and from Asian players that likely to enter
        and expand their position.496
(531) The Notifying Party submits that suppliers have ample technical and financial
        capabilities. In the Notifying Party’s view, as illustrated by the numerous projects
        won, all competitors have sufficient technical and financial capabilities to expand
        their position across the EEA. Even smaller competitors such as Newag, Pesa, and
        Skoda, have sufficient technical and financial capabilities to compete in different
        Member States across the EEA.497
(532) According to the Notifying Party, tender processes and bidding costs do not deter
        competitors from bidding across the EEA. While the Notifying Party acknowledges
        that tender processes can be costly and time-consuming, it also argues that bidding
        costs are not insurmountable and in any event only one of the factors that
        competitors evaluate before their decision to bid and do not deter competitors.498
(533) In the Notifying Party’s view, homologation does not deter entry or expansion
        because national technical rules and homologation processes do not affect a rolling
        stock supplier's incentive to participate in tenders for rolling stock in the EEA.
        According to the Notifying Party, while there are still some differences between
        national technical rules due to legacy infrastructure, the Commission’s Railway
        Packages and TSIs are increasingly removing such divergences.499 The Notifying
        Party refers to a drop in the number of national rules applicable in addition to the
495 Q4, replies to questions 29 and 30.
496 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraphs 154-157.
497 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 157.
498 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 157.
499 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 157.
                                                  106
 ---pagebreak---          TSIs500 and considers any effects that national rules would have on suppliers’
         incentives to bid has significantly decreased in the past five years and is expected to
         further decrease in the future. In the Notifying Party’s view, a suppliers’ incentives
         to participate in a tender are based on the assessment of its commercial attractiveness
         and probability of success rather than existing homologation or experience in a
         country.501 The Notifying Party provides a list of competitors that bid in various
         countries without prior homologation. Furthermore, European TSIs are increasingly
         harmonising the divergent national rules. Therefore, in the Notifying Party’s view,
         the extent that national differences constituted a hypothetical barrier to entry in the
         past, they will become increasingly less relevant in the future.
(534) The Notifying Party considers that commercial references are also not an
         insurmountable barrier to entry.502 The Notifying Party submits that while
         commercial references may be relevant in pre-qualification stage, they are not
         relevant for the customer’s ultimate decision during the bidding process as evidenced
         by examples of competitors that have won tenders without prior customer references
         such as CAF in France, CRRC in Czechia and Stadler in Slovenia and Spain.503
(535) The Notifying Party further argues that suppliers win projects across the EEA
         regardless of their footprint and there is no correlation between the presence of a
         rolling stock production or assembly facilities and success at national level. The
         absence of a correlation is underpinned by, among others: (i) the historical growth of
         rolling stock suppliers from national players supported by national governments to
         truly EEA-players bidding and winning projects across the EEA, (ii) the
         decentralised approach to manufacturing; and (iii) the explicit prohibition of
         localisation requirements in the EEA.504 The Notifying Party provides examples of
         competitors who win projects in countries where they are not located or where their
         capacity is limited.505
         (B)         The Commission’s assessment
         (B.i)       Barriers to entry
(536) The Commission considers that there are high barriers to entry and expansion in the
         market for self-propelled mainline trains. However, there are significant differences
         at national level, whereby barriers to entry are very high in France and Germany,
500 The Notifying Party explains that the ERA has been tasked in 2016 with “cleaning-up” unnecessary
    national rules in order to ensure a single European Railway Area.359 In June 11, 2019, ERA reported that
    the number of national rules applicable in addition to the TSIs has dropped from 14,312 in 2016 to 1,026
    in 2019. See Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 157.
501 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 157.
502 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 157.
503 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 157.
504 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 42.
505 Form CO, Annex B.2.12. The Notifying Party refers to the following examples of competitors who won
    projects despite not having production plants capable of producing or assembling mainline rolling stock in
    these countries: (i) Stadler in Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
    Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, and the UK, (ii) Siemens in Hungary and the UK, (iii) CAF in Italy
    and the Netherlands and with little production capacity in France, (iv) Skoda in Latvia, Lithuania, and
    Slovakia (Skoda did not win any mainline projects in Hungary and Finland despite having production
    facilities in these countries), (v) Pesa in the Czechia, Germany, Italy, and Lithuania, (vi) Newag in Italy,
    and (vii) CRRC in Czechia.
                                                           107
 ---pagebreak---         while other countries are characterised by lower barriers to entry and expansion
        (such as Sweden).
(537) First, mainline trains – similarly to other rolling stock – cannot be placed in service
        in the EEA without first obtaining a regulatory authorisation at both EEA level and
        in the Member State in which the rolling stock is intended to be operated. The
        requirement for EEA and national regulatory authorisation (due to country-specific
        requirements) makes the process complex and can prevent competitors from
        expanding their activities across the EEA and in particular in countries where they
        do not already have homologated trains. Due to the persisting country-specific
        requirements in this regard, the Commission’s assessment takes into account the
        relevant differences at national level.
(538) The results of the market investigation indicated that suppliers generally seek to
        obtain authorisation under national rules in parallel of the bidding process or after
        having been awarded a contract in a specific country. This may depend on the
        technical specifications, delivery times, and investment required. 506 Furthermore, the
        lack of authorisation under TSIs and NRDs in a specific country may affect a
        supplier's incentives to participate in a tender in that country.507 Skoda expressed the
        view that ‘[l]arge difference in the authorisation process in different EEA countries
        are often the reason for no participation in a tender’.508
(539) While some customers may accept that homologation be obtained after a tender is
        awarded to a given supplier, it is nevertheless a significant advantage for suppliers to
        be able to offer, at the moment of the tender, a fully authorised product compliant
        with both TSI and national requirements.509 This criterion is important for customers
        that seek to ensure that delivery times will be respected. For example, Alpha Trains,
        having its operations in France and Germany, explained that ‘[s]uch compliance
        generally reduces the homologation risk’.510 For suppliers, the ability to offer
        homologated rolling stock limits the related costs, provides an advantage in terms of
        delivery times, increases customers’ trust and represents a lower project execution
        risk.511 Skoda thus explains that having a fully authorised product at the moment of
        the tender ‘cut[s] the costs, lead time and increase[s] customer trust’.512
(540) As previously stated, obtaining homologation in France and in Germany is a very
        complex process, which deters entry from suppliers not already having homologated
        trains. In particular, homologation in Germany is seen as a risk factor for timely and
        successful delivery both by public and private operators. In addition, the complex
        homologation process in combination with strict financial and technical
        requirements imposed by Deutsche Bahn renders implausible the entry of suppliers
        not already active in Germany. As evidenced by the example of Pesa, the lack of
        authorisation, even when the supplier has been awarded a contract, can effectively
        prevent the prospect of durable entry in Germany.
506 Q3, replies to questions 44 and 44.1.
507 Q3, replies to question 45.
508 Skoda’s response to Q3, question 32.1.1.
509 Q4, replies to question 26.6.
510 Alpha Trains’ response to Q4, question 26.6.1.
511 Q3, replies to question 46.1.
512 Skoda’s response to Q3, question 46.1.
                                                    108
 ---pagebreak--- (541) Second, mainline trains are usually purchased through a sophisticated tender process,
         participation in which is costly, which is likely to limit the number of participants in
         each tender. Bidding costs provided by the Parties indicate that participating in
         tenders is material. Alstom’s bidding costs for tenders for mainline rolling stock
         amounts to an average of EUR […] per tender.513
(542) Although the Notifying Party claims that tender costs do not deter entry, it also
         recognises that it is one (of several) factors taken into account by prospective
         suppliers before deciding to bid for an opportunity. The results of the market
         investigation demonstrate that there is a difference between established players such
         as Siemens and other players or new entrants in that respect. While costs related to
         participation in tenders may be less of a deterring factor for larger players, they are
         still considered as an ‘entry costs’ and a ‘criticality’ for certain projects by other
         suppliers. The extent to which tender-related costs deter entry also depends on the
         complexity and scope of the tender. In Hitachi’s view, ‘[f]or instance, pre-
         qualification specifications and bids are necessary conditions for entering the
         tendering processes, and they come with financial costs which constitute barriers to
         entry. Furthermore, large tenders may require financial securities such as bonds,
         constituting, as well, a barrier to entry’.514 New entrants such as Transmashholding
         (‘TMH’) also explained tender-related costs are substantial, especially given that
         established players already have the advantage of scale and resources and previous
         bids with the same customers.515
(543) The Commission also notes that large scale tenders are typically characterised by
         lower (or no) participation from smaller competitors that are unable to meet the strict
         financial requirements and tender-related costs (in addition to other factors such as
         inability to comply with requested volumes).516 This is especially the case in France
         and in Germany for SNCF’s and Deutsche Bahn’s tenders.
(544) Third, the market investigation provided mixed views as to whether technical and
         financial capabilities constitute a barrier to entry. Established suppliers such as
         Siemens considered that such capabilities may play a role ‘if customers require
         technical features not already integrated in a supplier’s platform’.517 A majority of
         customers expressed the view that technical and financial capabilities do not deter
         entry. The Commission considers that this is true at the EEA-wide level, where
         competitors’ participation in tenders in different countries demonstrates that they
         indeed have the technical and financial capacity to comply with project
         requirements.
(545) However, as previously stated, the Commission considers that such stringent
         technical and financial requirements to participate and in tenders, most notably
         organised by Deutsche Bahn in Germany, deter entry from smaller suppliers not
         already having a homologated platform in operation and not being able to bear the
         financial cost of the investment required during the period (of up to 4 years in
         Germany).
513 Form CO, Annex RFI 2 Q 4, table 3.
514  Hitachi’s response to Q3, question 32.2.
515 TMH’s response to Q3, question 32.2.
516 For example, Siemens lists a number of tenders (organised by SNCF in France, NS in the Netherlands,
     Abellio in the UK) in which only the Parties, Stadler, Siemens (and to a lesser extent CAF) participated.
517 Siemens’ response to Q3, question 32.3.
                                                           109
 ---pagebreak--- (546) Fourth, to be eligible for pre-qualification in a tender, customers require prospective
         bidders to present prior commercial references. A majority of responding
         competitors and customers considered that the commercial references required in
         tenders constitute a barrier to entry.518 As previously stated, the requirement for an
         established track record and commercial references represents an important factor
         deterring entry in France. Customers generally indicated that commercial references
         from outside the EEA are less relevant.519 The requirement for prior references
         obtained in an EEA Member State thus constitutes a high barrier to entry especially
         for non-European suppliers of mainline rolling stock.
(547) Furthermore, as confirmed by the results of the market investigation, the
         Commission considers that holding prior EEA references as well as references in the
         country where the tender is held represents a significant competitive advantage.520
(548) The Commission notes that customers rely on references to assess a supplier's
         credibility in relation to key tender requirements and thus limiting risks when
         procuring from certain suppliers. This means that established suppliers with more
         rolling stock in operation are perceived as more credible.
(549)     This is confirmed by the results of the market investigation. The majority of
         customers who expressed an opinion thus indicated that suppliers with more
         mainline rolling stock currently in operation in the EEA than their competitors are
         more credible bidders.521 Therefore, it follows that post-Transaction the Parties will
         combine commercial references, homologation certificates and established customer
         relationships which confers a strong competitive advantage upon the merged entity.
(550) Fifth, as stated in section 5.2.2, the Commission considers that there is a correlation
         between having a manufacturing presence in France and Germany and the ability to
         win contracts. The need for local manufacturing footprint in France and Germany
         constitutes a barrier to entry as evidenced by the fact that no supplier was able to
         enter the market in a meaningful way in both countries without local presence.
(551) The Commission considers that any correlation between having a manufacturing site
         and being able to secure contracts is less prevalent in other EEA countries. As
         demonstrated by the Notifying Party, suppliers win contracts in the Nordic countries
         without having a manufacturing facility. For example, Stadler won contracts in
         Sweden, Finland, and Norway without having local manufacturing assets in these
         countries. Similarly, Alstom does not have manufacturing presence in Denmark but
         generated sales in the country. Such a correlation also appears to be less strong in
         Eastern Europe. Stadler succeeded in selling mainline rolling stock in e.g., Czechia,
         Estonia, Slovenia without local manufacturing presence. The same applies to Skoda,
         Pesa and Newag that expanded their activities outside of their home countries in
         other Central and Eastern European countries without establishing manufacturing
         facilities.522
518 Q3, replies to question 32.4; Q4, replies to question 26.4.
519 Q4, replies to question 26.4.1.3.
520 Q4, replies to question 44.
521 Q4, replies to question
522 Form CO, Annex B.2.12, Table 1.
                                                           110
 ---pagebreak--- (552) In particular, with regard to Sweden, where the Parties combine a high market share
       in the overall market for mainline rolling stock, the Commission submits that
       barriers to entry are low.
(553)   In the Commission’s view, there is no correlation between winning contracts and
       having local presence. Neither Alstom nor Bombardier have any manufacturing sites
       in Sweden which has not prevented them from winning tenders and generating sales.
       This is confirmed by customers. For example, AB Transitio having railway
       operations in Sweden expressed the view that a bidder does not need to have ‘a prior
       track record or local manufacturing and/or servicing capabilities in Sweden or in
       the Nordic countries to be selected’.523 It selected Stadler without having previous
       sales of EMUs in Sweden (just a limited presence in passenger traffic).524
(554) Furthermore, AB Transitio also considered that there are sufficient alternative
       suppliers of mainline rolling stock in Sweden. This customer has a frame contract
       with three suppliers, namely Bombardier, Stadler and CAF. This frame contract sets
       out AB Transitio’s general needs regarding regional trains. When AB Transitio has
       new needs for rolling stock, it runs a competitive tender among the suppliers
       included in the frame contract. Even if CAF was not yet selected in a competitive
       tender, it is still considered as a credible alternative supplier.525
(555) The results of the market investigation did not provide any further elements
       demonstrating any particular difficulties in terms of homologation, complex tender
       requirements or stringent financial and technical requirements that would amount to
       high barriers to enter the Swedish market.
(556) The Commission further notes that this conclusion holds true also for other EEA
       countries that are characterised by low barriers to entry and a higher number of
       alternative suppliers. For example, in Italy, the Commission observes that in addition
       to Alstom (and Bombardier to a very limited extent), other suppliers include Hitachi,
       Stadler, CAF, and smaller players such as Newag and Firema. In addition, in the
       countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Commission also notes that not only
       Skoda, Pesa and Newag succeeded in expanding their activities outside of their home
       countries but also other players such as Stadler, Siemens, CAF, and Talgo compete
       and win tenders.
(557) It results from the above that there are high barriers to entry and expansion in the
       market for self-propelled mainline trains (and possible segmentations) in France and
       Germany. This results from a combination of factors, including the need for local
       presence, product development, bidding costs, certification of rolling stock under
       European and national rules and the requirement that prospective bidders hold
       sufficient references of prior sales in the EEA.
       (B.ii)     New entry
(558) Similarly to the conclusion as regards very high-speed rolling stock, the Commission
       considers that the above mentioned barriers make the entry of non-European
       suppliers in the market for self-propelled mainline trains in the EEA, including
523 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with AB Transitio, 29 May 2020, paragraph 6.
524 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with AB Transitio, 29 May 2020, paragraph 5.
525 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with AB Transitio, 29 May 2020, paragraphs 4 and 5.
                                                       111
 ---pagebreak---         Switzerland, and in particular in EEA countries such as France and Germany, highly
        unlikely in a foreseeable future.
(559) With regard to mainline rolling stock, Asian suppliers such as CRRC and Hyundai
        Rotem are not expected to become credible players in the EEA, including
        Switzerland, (or any country in the EEA) in the next 2-5 years.
(560) Furthermore, the Commission notes that the TMH (the largest rail rolling stock
        manufacturer and services provider in Russia and the CIS region) is also not
        currently able to credibly compete in tenders for mainline rolling stock in the EEA,
        including Switzerland due to the lack of homologation certificates and an established
        track record. According to the results of the market investigation, it will take TMH
        3-5 years before it could enter the market for mainline rolling stock in the EEA.526
(561) Therefore, the Commission considers that entry from suppliers from outside the EEA
        (that could potential exercise a competitive constraint on the merged entity) is not
        likely in the foreseeable future.
          6.3.4.4. Structural competitive advantages
(562) First, the Commission considers that even if local manufacturing presence is not a
        prerequisite to win contracts in all EEA countries, having a large geographic
        footprint still represents a significant competitive advantage for the merged entity.
(563) The bidding data, the Parties’ and their competitors’ market shares generally
        demonstrate that having a local manufacturing presence in some countries results in
        a stronger market position. For example, Hitachi’s market position in terms of
        market shares is stronger in Italy, Spain and the UK where it also has manufacturing
        presence. The same is true for CAF in Spain, Italy, Siemens in Germany and Austria,
        Stadler in Switzerland, Germany and Hungary, Skoda in Czechia, Pesa and Newag
        in Poland.
(564) Therefore, the Commission considers that having local manufacturing footprint
        represents a competitive advantage. This is confirmed by the majority of competitors
        and customers which consider that local presence in terms of local manufacturing
        and/or servicing capabilities is advantageous when suppliers participate in a tender
        for self-propelled mainline trains.527
(565) In that regard, the Commission considers that the merged entity will have the largest
        manufacturing footprint in the EEA, ahead of all competitors. While the Parties will
        combine manufacturing sites in twelve countries, their competitors will have
        manufacturing presence, at most, in five countries.528
(566) The merged entity will combine homologation certificates and commercial
        references allowing it to participate in tenders requiring national homologation
        without incurring additional costs. Respondents to the market investigation share this
        view. For example, SNCF expressed the view that ‘[t]he catalog of off-the-shelf
        platforms of the merged entity will be enlarged and will allow it to position itself
526 Q3, replies to question 42.2.
527 Q4, replies to question 40.
528 Non-confidential submission of Siemens, 21 April 2020, paragraph 18.
                                                       112
 ---pagebreak---         more easily by better controlling the costs of adapting the platforms to the specifics
        of each call for tenders’.529 NS explained that a larger manufacturing footprint gives
        ‘the merged entity the possibility to bid for more and larger tenders by using the
        different strengths and competing against at least one competitor less’.530
(567) Second, in the Commission’s view, the merged entity will also benefit from its large
        installed base and long-term customer relationships.
(568) The Parties will combine the largest installed base in France and Germany. This
        endows the merged entity with a competitive advantage because having a large
        installed base is significant for winning future tenders, provides valuable customer
        references, potential for modernisation and upgrades, as well as revenues from the
        provision of maintenance and other services.531 Indeed, as confirmed by the results
        of the market investigation, a large installed base translates into a competitive
        advantage in the aftermarket for the provision of maintenance and related services
        potentially for a long period of time over the lifecycle of the rolling stock
        (compensating for the lumpiness of rolling stock orders).532
(569) With regard to longstanding commercial relationships, all competitors that expressed
        a view indicated that the existence of a longstanding commercial relationship with
        the train supplier represents an important selection criterion for a customer of self-
        propelled mainline trains.533 By contrast, customers do not consider that having
        previously procured mainline rolling stock from a given supplier constitutes an
        important factor in future (contestable) tenders.534 The reason is that each supplier
        must fulfil the criteria at the time of the specific tender.535
(570) However, while some customers hold tenders for the procurement of self-propelled
        trains, in some instances they chose to instead place repeat orders to their incumbent
        suppliers. Customers that placed repeat orders in the last ten years explained that the
        advantages of repeat orders from the same supplier include shorter time to market,
        homogeneity of the fleet, reduced staff training costs, operational flexibility, similar
        maintenance requirements etc. 536 According to NS, ‘from an operational/logistical
        cost perspective it is more beneficial to exercise such additional order, for instance
        due to not having to educate staff again, not having to adjust equipment and
        facilities, being able to couple the trains of the additional order to the existing trains
        to gain operational flexibility’.537
(571) As stated in section 6.3.2, repeat orders account for a significant proportion of the
        market and are thus important evidence of suppliers’ competitive strength. This
        favours the Parties more than other suppliers because they benefit from the largest
        proportion of repeat orders placed at in France and Germany (where nearly all repeat
        orders benefitted the Parties). The Commission considers that this represents a
529 SNCF’s response to Q4, question 41.1.
530 NS’ response to Q4, question 41.1.
531 Siemens’ response to Q3, question 64.1.
532 Q3, replies to question 64.1.
533 Q3, replies to question 53.
534 Q4, replies to question 42.
535 Q4, replies to question 42.1.1.
536 Q4, replies to question 43.1.
537 NS’ response to Q4, question 43.1.
                                                     113
 ---pagebreak---          competitive advantage entrenching the Parties’ established positions and further
         raising barriers to entry.
(572) Therefore, the Transaction will have an important structural impact (beyond the
         Parties’ high market shares) in the market for self-propelled trains (and possible
         segmentations) in France and Germany further reinforcing the Parties’ competitive
         position.
           6.3.4.5. Countervailing buyer power
         (A)        The Notifying Party’s views
(573) The Notifying Party argues that rolling stock customers are highly sophisticated
         buyers (i.e., mainly public national incumbent operators) with decades of experience
         in procuring rolling stock.538 In the Notifying Party’s view, the Parties face
         significant countervailing buyer power from their customers and will continue doing
         so post-Transaction because (i) customers customise their tenders to ensure the
         desired level of participation, (ii) procurement methods, including frame contracts539
         and repeat orders540, ensure flexibility, (iii) customers face limited switching costs
         and engage in multi-sourcing.
         (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(574) As stated in section 6.2.3.4, the exercise of buyer power requires the existence of
         sufficient credible alternative suppliers such that customers can switch or threaten to
         switch to the Parties’ competitors post-Transaction.541 Furthermore, according to
         paragraph 67 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, ‘it is not sufficient that buyer
         power exists prior to the merger, it must also exist and remain effective following the
         merger. This is because a merger of two suppliers may reduce buyer power if it
         thereby removes a credible alternative’.
(575) The bargaining power of customers is thus dependent on the number of participants
         in a tender.
538 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 140.
539 Framework agreements allow customers to pre-select a number of suppliers based on estimated future
    procurement needs and requirements. Once they have framework agreements in place, customers only
    proceed with procurement once the demand materializes. Framework agreements thus allow customers to
    receive competitive bids for future demands well ahead of the process. Most notably, as framework
    agreements are not exclusive, they encourage further competition between the pre-selected suppliers. In
    addition, as customers are not bound by framework agreements, they may organize contestable tenders
    should they consider that the terms of the framework agreements are no longer competitive. See Form CO,
    Chapter B.2, paragraph 140.
540 According to the Notifying Party, options/repeat orders allow customers to purchase additional rolling
    stock based on the specifications of the initial tender. Sales from repeat orders are not obtained in
    “tenders.” Instead, repeat orders are non-contestable call-offs based on a contract for which competition
    took place at an earlier stage. Before executing a non-contestable repeat order, customers may consider if
    the option available as part of their existing contract is still attractive in light of prevailing market
    conditions or in case of non-satisfaction during the execution of the original order. If it is no longer
    attractive, a customer may opt not to call-off the option but instead to organize a new contestable tender
    that is open to competition. See Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 140.
541 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, paragraph 65.
                                                         114
 ---pagebreak--- (576) As regards France and Germany, where high barriers to entry have been identified,
        pre-Transaction, the number of credible bidders is currently very limited, i.e., to 3 in
        France and 4 in Germany. The number of average bidders per tender in France is 2
        (in the overall market for self-propelled mainline trains) and in Germany 2.7 (both in
        the overall market for self-propelled mainline trains and for regional trains).
        Following the Transaction, the market for self-propelled mainline trains, and
        possible segmentations, in France and Germany will become significantly more
        concentrated which further limits the number of credible bidders in France from 3 to
        2 and in Germany from 4 to 3. This is confirmed by the majority of competitors who
        consider that the Transaction will negatively impact customers’ bargaining power,
        most notably in markets where the Parties are the two main competitors and which
        are characterised by high barriers to entry. 542
(577) The results of market investigation show that there is a difference in the existing
        buyer power between large national railway operators and and smaller ones. A
        majority of customers however indicate that the Transaction will have no impact on
        their bargaining power, including national railway operators such as Deutsche Bahn,
        SNCF, Ferrovie dello Stato, and SBB. By contrast, a significant number of
        customers, mostly smaller operators (such as Alpha Trains Europa, Lokltrafik but
        also the national railway operator SNCB), express the view that the Transaction will
        weaken their bargaining power.543 In that regard, these respondents point out the fact
        that the loss of one bidder will have a negative impact on their buyer power.544
(578) Pursuant to paragraph 67 of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, ‘Countervailing
        buyer power cannot be found to sufficiently off-set potential adverse effects of a
        merger if it only ensures that a particular segment of customers, with particular
        bargaining strength, is shielded from significantly higher prices or deteriorated
        conditions after the merger’. Therefore, the fact that some national railway operators
        may have bargaining power that will not be significantly impacted by the
        Transaction does not change the conclusion that the Transaction raises serious
        doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market due to the reduction of
        available alternatives and the strong competitive position of the merged entity post-
        Transaction.
(579) Therefore, the Commission considers that the Transaction is likely to decrease
        customers’ buyer power in the market for self-propelled mainline trains, and possible
        segmentation in France and Germany, which are characterised by high concentration
        and barriers to entry and expansion.
542 Q3, replies to questions 66 and 67.
543 Q4, replies to question 52.
544 Q4, replies to question 52.1.
                                                  115
 ---pagebreak---             6.3.4.6. Liberalisation of the railway industry
          (A)        The Notifying Party’s views
(580) The Notifying Party submits that over the past few years, EU efforts for railway
          liberalisation545 have significantly shifted the competitive landscape for all rolling
          stock markets, including for regional EMUs and intercity EMUs.546
(581) In the Notifying Party’s view, the liberalisation of the railway industry has led to the
          emergence of private operators (including national incumbents acting outside their
          territory)547 and leasing companies employing business models that tend to be more
          driven by short-term profit incentives given their temporally limited concession
          rights. By contrast, national incumbents have historically enjoyed long-term
          monopoly on routes and have enjoyed significant support from governments,
          allowing them to focus more on long term profits, which has for example translated
          in them procuring and owning custom-made trains or paying specific attention to
          long-term costs and maintenance. The Notifying Party explains that the prevalence
          of private operators at national level varies depending on the existing level of
          railway liberalisation.548
(582) In the Notifying Party’s view, customers procuring tenders for private operation
          (‘private operators’) put more emphasis on price-related criteria compared to
          customers procuring for public operations. According to the Notifying Party, private
          operators tend to lease existing versatile platforms which are considered ‘low-risk’
          instead of owning their own trains. The Notifying Party explains that private
          operators typically have smaller fleets compared to incumbent public operators, they
          typically pay less focus on long term maintenance considerations compared to public
          operators with larger fleets.549
(583) The Notifying Party submits that the emergence of this new customer group has
          facilitated the entry and expansion of suppliers with standardised and affordable
          platforms including Stadler, CAF, and to an increasing extent CRRC. This has in
          turn allowed such competitors to successfully participate in the highly structured
          tenders organised by state-owned railway operators. In the Notifying Party’s view,
          the change in the customer landscape has, in turn, placed significant constraints on
          historical players.550 Even in the interim (i.e., until 2023), more and more lines are
545 The Notifying Party explains that since 2011, the European Union has undertaken significant effort to
    liberalise domestic passenger services in an attempt to reduce, with the aim of enabling privately owned
    train operators to access the market on a competitive basis. These efforts culminated in the adoption of the
    Forth Railway Package in 2016, imposing, among others, measures to sever the close relationship between
    train operators and infrastructure managers in efforts to open the rail operation market to entry from
    private players. As of 2023, the Fourth Railway Package also requires all subsidized railway passenger
    services in Europe to be tendered. See Form CO, Chapter B.2, footnote 310.
546 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 142.
547 The Notifying Party explains that with reference to the distinction between public and private operators,
    instead of segmenting customers based on their ownership and funding structure (i.e., receiving public
    funds or purely private company), it is more appropriate to assess whether the line that an operator bid for
    is liberalised, i.e., whether it was open to competition. The Commission follows this approach throughout
    the present decision. See Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 144.
548 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 142 and footnote 311.
549 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 146.
550 Form CO, Chapter B.2, paragraph 143.
                                                           116
 ---pagebreak---          being tendered for private operation across the EEA, including in countries with
         strong national incumbents, such as France.
         (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(584) The Commission considers that while the liberalisation of the European railway
         industry may increase competition in the market for self-propelled mainline trains,
         any effects from the liberalisation will not be such that the structural impact of the
         Transaction can be offset for the following reasons.
(585) First, the results of the market investigation are mixed as regards the expected
         impact of liberalisation on the demand for self-propelled mainline trains. Several
         customers and competitors expect a slight increase in demand in the next 2-3 years
         as a result of liberalisation but others do not expect the liberalisation of railway
         operations to have any significant impact on competition for the supply of mainline
         trains.551
(586) In the Commission’s view, and according to the results of the market investigation,
         private operators, albeit more price-oriented, select suppliers on the basis of the same
         criteria as public operators, including technical characteristics, an established track
         record, and suppliers’ reputation. The Commission further considers that private
         operators have a strong preference for standard platforms, manufactured in
         compliance with technical and regulatory requirements and already in operation in a
         specific country.552 According to Stadler, private operators ‘prefer off-the-shelf
         solutions’, while Siemens considers that they ‘prefer train with high quantities in
         operation to look to a supplier’s prior track record to ensure project execution’.553
         Keolis, a private operator active among others in Germany, explains that ‘[t]he
         criteria for selecting suppliers include: (i) price, (ii) track record and previous
         experience in cooperating with a supplier, (iii) delivery time, (iv) technical features,
         including maintainability’.554
(587) Therefore, any increase in demand as a result of the liberalisation of the railway
         industry is expected to benefit established players rather than to facilitate the entry of
         new suppliers. In CAF’s view, ‘[l]iberalisation will reinforce the position of
         manufacturers already active in a particular country’.555
(588) The Commission further submits that even if railway liberalisation would facilitate
         entry and expansion (quod non), any additional demand stemming from private
         operators is not expected to have a significant impact on the competitive conditions
         in the market for mainline trains (and possible segmentations), especially in
         countries where the merged entity has a significant competitive position and which
         are characterised by high barriers to entry. This is because, as confirmed by the
         results of the market investigation, private operators procure small volumes.
(589) Fourth, liberalisation has not yielded the same results in all EEA countries and is
         accordingly not expected to have the same impact across the EEA in the next 2-3
551 Q3, replies to question 33.
552 Q4, replies to question 38.
553 Q3, replies to question 35.1.
554 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Keolis, 23 June 2020, paragraph 6.
555 Q3, replies to question 33.
                                                       117
 ---pagebreak---        years. In line with the Notifying Party’s arguments, the railway industry in some
       Member States is more open to competition (e.g., the UK or Sweden) than in others.
       While the liberalisation of national railway operations has started years ago (e.g.,
       more than 20 years ago in the UK), other countries such as France are only now
       starting the liberalisation process. The Commission also notes that there are several
       private operators in Germany but their presence has not contributed to the entry of
       suppliers not already active in Germany.
(590) This is confirmed by the results of the market investigation. Private operators
       expressed the view that in Germany, as stated above, the lengthy and complex
       homologation process is still seen as a barrier to entry which limits the number of
       credible suppliers. According to Transdev, ‘in Germany, currently the credible
       suppliers for regional EMUs are Stadler, Siemens, Alstom, and Bombardier. […]
       Transdev could consider a proposal coming from a supplier that has no
       homologated trains in Germany but it is uncertain if a supplier will be able to obtain
       homologation during the construction period. But there are currently no credible
       alternative bidders in Germany or France in that regard’.556
(591) The Commission thus concludes that the impact of the liberalisation is not such that
       it will remove or reduce the barriers to entry identified in France and Germany in a
       significant way in the next 2-3 years.
6.3.5. Conclusion
(592) For the reasons set out in section 6.3., and in light of the evidence made available
       during the investigation, the Commission considers that the Transaction raises
       serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of horizontal
       non-coordinated effects, in relation to the market for self-propelled mainline trains
       and in the narrower possible segmentations for regional trains, EMUs, and regional
       EMUs in France and Germany.
6.4.   Urban Rolling stock
(593) The Parties’ activities overlap in the supply of steel wheel metros (automated and
       conventional) and steel wheel trams/LRVs (low floor and high floor).
6.4.1. Metros
         6.4.1.1. The Parties’ activities
       (A)        Alstom
(594) Alstom is active in the supply of metros in the EEA through its Metropolis platform
       and tailor-made projects. The Metropolis platform is a steel-wheel metro platform
       which can be configured in automated or conventional mode, and supplied in high,
       medium, or low capacity versions. Alstom also offers tailor-made metro solutions in
       response to specific customer requirements, which can be based on either steel-
       wheels or rubber tires.557
556 Non-confidential minutes of conference call with Transdev, 4 June 2020, paragraph 6.
557 Form CO, Chapter B.3., paragraph 41.
                                                        118
 ---pagebreak--- (595) In addition, Alstom holds a […]% controlling stake558 in the company TMH, the
         holding company of Russian rolling stock supplier Transmashholding Group. In the
         EEA, TMH offers conventional steel wheel metros.559
         (B)        Bombardier
(596) Bombardier is active in the EEA-wide market for metros with its Movia platform.
         Movia is a steel-wheel metro platform which can be upgraded to provide driverless
         operation. Bombardier also offers tailor-made steel-wheel metro solutions in
         response to specific customer requirements.560
         (C)        Consortia
(597) In addition to their stand-alone activities, Alstom and Bombardier participate
         together in several consortia:
               MF19: In November 2019, the Alstom and Bombardier consortium was
                  awarded the contract for the design and manufacture of the new generation of
                  metros for Île-de-France Mobilités and RATP;561
               MF 2000: Alstom, Bombardier, and Areva562 were awarded a contract for the
                  replacement of up to 40% of the RATP fleet on three lines of the Paris metro
                  in 2001. RATP exercised options for additional trains in 2006, 2011, and
                  2014;563
               DT5: Alstom and Bombardier won the 2006 project for tailor-made
                  conventional steel-wheel trains for the Hamburg metro in consortium. The
                  customer placed additional orders in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019.564
(598) Alstom does not have any other platforms developed in consortia or similar
         contractual arrangements with other suppliers for steel-wheel metros except for the
         aforementioned arrangements in the past 10 years. Bombardier did not win any
         projects in consortia with other suppliers in the past 10 years.
558 As part of its interest, Alstom has certain veto rights, including [Information on Alstom’s veto rights over
    TMH]. Under the Jurisdictional Notice, Alstom considers these rights to amount to the exercise of
    “decisive influence” over the “strategic commercial behavior” of TMH. Therefore, the Notifying Party
    considers that Alstom likely jointly controls TMH. TMH is globally active in the manufacturing and
    supply of locomotives, mainline trains, passenger, freight, and specialized railcars, rail buses, trams and
    metros.
559 Reply to RFI 48. Therefore, the order intake and market shares provided for Alstom include the order
    intake and market shares for TMH (Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 44).
560 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 46.
561 The customer sought a “driverless ready” platform to be initially operated at GoA 2 but with the
    possibility of an upgrade to GoA 4. The contract also includes the option for the purchase of GoA 4
    directly for Line 13 (without the initial GoA 2 level operation). The firm order was worth €[…], with an
    option for up to 410 trains (Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 47).
562 Areva’s command and control transportation have been acquired by Alstom in 2014.
563 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 47.
564 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 47.
                                                           119
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---        regardless of the market segmentation, the Parties’ activities in the market for metros
       do not overlap in the past five years and their market share is significantly lower for
       the period 2010-2019.
(604) In addition, the Notifying Party states that the market shares do not take into account
       the pro-competitive effects of the Transaction resulting from the combination of
       consortium partners. It explains in that regard that the existence of several Alstom
       and Bombardier consortia indicate that the Parties engage in complementary
       services. The Notifying Party indicates that the Parties’ integration will allow the
       merged entity to offer lower prices and decrease transaction costs and allow for a
       better co-ordination in terms of product design, the organization of the production
       process, and the way in which the products are sold.569
(605) Third, the Notifying Party states that contestable-only market shares illustrate that
       the Parties have been less successful at winning new projects. For instance, the
       Parties together account for only [20-30]% of the contestable-only steel wheel
       projects in the past 10 years, compared to [30-40]% for contestable and non-
       contestable projects.570 The Parties’ difficulty to win new projects is particularly
       obvious for automated steel wheel metros, for which only Alstom won a new tender
       in the past 10 years (accounting for [0-5]% of the market).571
(606) Fourth, the Notifying Party states that the Parties are not close competitors in the
       EEA. The bidding data for steel wheel metros ([…] contestable projects in the past
       10 years) indicate that Bombardier has only participated in […] steel wheel metro
       projects in the past 10 years ([20-30]% of all tenders), of which three in consortia
       with other suppliers, which makes it an infrequent bidder. In addition, among the
       […] contestable projects in the past 10 years, the Parties only overlapped in […] or
       [0-10]% of these projects, with Bombardier bidding in consortia in [all such]
       tenders.572
(607) Furthermore, the Notifying Party argues that Parties are significantly more
       constrained by the presence of rivals than by each other, because the Parties lost
       more to competitors than to each other. While the Parties have never lost any steel
       wheel metro projects to each other, Alstom has lost […] each to CAF and Siemens
       and […] to each Newag (in consortia with Siemens), Škoda and Stadler.
       Bombardier, in turn, has lost […] to each of Stadler, CAF, and Siemens.573
(608) Fifth, the Notifying Party indicates that the market for steel-wheel metros is
       characterised by strong countervailing customer buyer power exerted by Public
       Transport Authorities (‘PTAs’) operating under stringent budget constraints which
       lead them to carefully balance price-related criteria (such as acquisition price and life
       cycle costs) against non-price related considerations (including performance, and
       adherence to contractual terms and considerations). As a result, customers are
       increasingly shying away from expensive and tailored products in favour of low-risk
569 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 61.
570 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 64.
571 Form CO, Chapter B3, paragraph 68.
572 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 103 and 105.
573 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 108-109.
                                                  121
 ---pagebreak---         standardized platforms. This has benefitted low-risk suppliers with highly
        customizable platforms, including Stadler, CAF, and Škoda.574
(609) Sixth, the Notifying Party states that EEA-wide market for steel-wheel metros is
        fast-growing market which attracts European and non-European suppliers. For
        instance, the Notifying Party explains that CRRC is significantly increasing its
        bidding activities for steel-wheel metros in the EEA, with bids in Portugal, the UK,
        Romania and Spain.575
(610) Finally, the Notifying Party argues that Bombardier’s market share overstates its
        position because the company is facing financial difficulties and has encountered
        critical project-execution problems concerning the delivery of several platforms,
        including the 2013 SL order for automated steel-wheel metros in Sweden
        (Stockholm). As a consequence, the Notifying Party considers that Bombardier has
        weakened its position in the market for metros.576
          6.4.1.4. The Commission’s assessment
(611) The merged entity will hold a large market share, especially in the overall market for
        metros, in which the Transaction will reinforce Alstom’s market position pre-merger
        ([20-30]%) by [10-20] points and confirm its market leading position. The merged
        entity will also become the market leader in the possible market for steel wheel
        metros and its market position will be reinforced in the possible markets for steel
        wheel automated and conventional metros.
(612) However, the Commission considers that, for the reasons set out below, the
        Transaction does not raise serious doubts as a result of possible horizontal non-
        coordinated effects, either through the creation of strengthening of a dominant
        position or otherwise significantly impeding effective competition, in steel-wheel
        metros in the EEA.
(613) First, in the overall market for metros, the merged entity will face the competitive
        constraint exerted by important competitors, in particular Siemens ([20-30]%) and,
        to a lesser extent, CAF ([10-20]%), Stadler ([10-20]%) and Hitachi ([5-10]%). The
        merged entity’s market share will be significantly lower when considering the
        possible market for steel wheel metro (Alstom [10-20]%, Bombardier [10-20]%).
        Even if the merged entity will become the market leader, it will be closely followed
        by Siemens ([20-30]%) and will also face competition from important suppliers such
        as CAF ([10-20]%), Stadler ([10-20]%) and Hitachi ([10-20]%).
(614) When sub-dividing the steel wheel market between automated and conventional
        metros, the Transaction, although it will reinforce Alstom’s position ([20-30]% in
        conventional steel wheel metros, [30-40]% in automated steel wheel metros),577 will
        not materially change the structure of the markets. Alstom will remain the second
        supplier behind Stadler ([20-30]% in conventional steel wheel metros) and Siemens
        ([40-50]% in automated steel wheel metros). In addition, the merged entity will face
574 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 111-112.
575 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 116.
576 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 55 to 59.
577 As stated in the footnote 566 of this decision, the Parties’ and their competitors’ market share does not
    materially differ when including GoA3 and GoA4 in the market for automated steel wheel metros.
                                                         122
 ---pagebreak---         the competitive constraint exerted by important suppliers such as CAF and Hitachi
        (in both automated and conventional steel wheel metros) or Skoda (in conventional
        steel wheel metros).
(615) Second, as stated above at paragraphs (465) et seqq., in respect of mainline rolling
        stock, the Commission considers that a competitive assessment solely focused on
        contestable market shares would underestimate the Parties’ competitive strength and
        disproportionately inflate their competitors’ market position, particularly in
        circumstances where non-contestable orders represent a material portion of the
        market. As far as metros are concerned, non-contestable (repeat) orders represent
        […]% of the total market. Accordingly, restricting the assessment on contestable-
        only tenders would lead to excluding more than a quarter of the market. In any event,
        as such assessment is unnecessary for the purpose of the present assessment, there is
        no need to take a view as to the appropriateness of the assessment of contestable-
        only portion of the market.
(616) Third, for same reasons as applicable to mainline rolling stock, market share
        calculations do not exclude consortia. For the purpose of this decision, market shares
        have been allocated based on the contribution of each consortium partner. There is
        no reason to depart from this approach in urban rolling stock.
(617) Fourth, the results of the market investigation indicated that, according to a majority
        of respondents, Siemens is considered by competitors and customers to be Alstom’s
        or Bombardier’s closest competitor. Some respondents also cite CAF, Siemens,
        Hitachi or Stadler as the Parties’ closest competitors.578 The bidding data confirms
        that other suppliers exercise more significant competitive constraints on the Parties
        than each other. In the market for steel wheel metro and possible sub-markets for
        automated or conventional steel wheel metros, CAF is the by far most regular bidder
        (its participation rate is comprised between [60-70]% and [80-90]%, according the
        market envisaged), followed by Siemens, Alstom or Stadler, depending on the
        segmentation envisaged. Bombardier is significantly less active on all these
        conceivable markets.579
(618) More generally, the results of the market investigation confirm that the market for
        metros in the EEA is less concentrated than other rolling stock markets. Indeed, a
        large number of competitors interrogated identified themselves as close competitors
        to the Parties for the supply of metros on their respective market segment.580 For
        instance, a supplier indicated that ‘[t]here is not much differences between Alstom
        and other rolling stock manufacturer.’
(619) In addition, unlike the Commission’s findings regarding other rolling stock markets
        such as very high-speed and mainline trains, a majority of competitors consider that
        the competitive pressure exerted by the Chinese company CRRC may increase in a
        foreseeable future. In that regard, some respondents indicated that, even if the
        company is still missing a track-record and homologated platforms in the EEA,
        CRRC is considered by most respondents to be currently or soon able to submit
578 Q8, replies to questions 42.1. and 42.2 ; Q9, replies to questions 39.1. and 39.2. and to questions 43.1. and
    43.2.
579 CPL provided by the Notifying Party.
580 Q8, replies to question 40.
                                                           123
 ---pagebreak---         credible bids in metro tenders in the EEA.581 For instance, competitors indicate
        several projects where CRRC recently bid in the EEA, such as the contract to
        support track renewal and maintenance activities on the London Underground
        network (which was won by CRRC) or the supply of rolling stock and the
        modernization of the Lisbon metro signalling system.582
(620) Fifth, a majority of respondents consider that customers have a medium or strong
        buyer power in metro projects, which allows them, according to a customer, to
        challenge submissions from bidders in tenders in order to obtain more competitive
        offers.583 The majority of customers further consider that the Transaction will not
        weaken their buyer power, in particular because a sufficient number of competitors
        will remain after the Transaction.584
(621) Finally, overall, the very large majority of customers did not raise concerns related to
        the supply of metros, regardless of the possible segmentation, by the merged
        entity.585 Some customers expect efficiencies resulting from the Transaction through
        the mutualisation of the Parties’ internal costs.586
(622) Based on the above, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise
        serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of horizontal
        non-coordinated effects, in particular through the creation or strengthening of a
        dominant position, in the market for the supply of metros (and possible
        segmentations).
6.4.2. Trams/LRVs
          6.4.2.1. The Parties’ activities
        (A)         Alstom
(623) Alstom supplies three trams/LRVs platforms in the EEA: (i) the Citadis platform,
        which is a low-floor, steel wheel platform available in a broad range of
        configurations and lengths. In the past 10 years, the Citadis has been sold to France,
        Germany, Greece, Ireland, the UK and Spain; (ii) the Citadis Dualis, which is a low-
        floor steel wheel platform. The Citadis Dualis is multimodal solution which allows
        the platform to switch between conventional rail networks (mainly in suburbs of
        large cities) and tramway tracks (mainly in city centres). The Dualis operates in
        France; and (iii) the Translohr STE and SP Prime trams are both low-floor, rubber
        tire trams in 2012. In the EEA, the trams have been sold in France and Italy.
        (B)         Bombardier
(624) Bombardier supplies trams/LRVs with its Flexity family platforms within the EEA:
        (i) the Flexity Classic platform, which a low-floor tram running on steel wheels. It
        operates in Germany, Austria, Sweden and Poland; (ii) the Flexity Swift, running on
581 Q8, replies to question 55.1.
582 Q8, replies to question 55.1.
583 Q9, replies to question 60 ; Q9, replies to question 58.
584 Q9, replies to questions 60 and 60.1.
585 Q9, replies to question 99.
586 Q9, replies to question 100.1.
                                                           124
 ---pagebreak---        steel wheels, which exists as low-floor or high-floor solution. The Flexity Swift
       operates in Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK; (iii) the
       Flexity 2, running on steel wheels, is a customisable low-floor tram with a universal
       design. It operates in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and the UK, as well as in
       Australia.
(625) The Notifying Party explains that Bombardier used to offer a rubber-tire tram
       solution but has discontinued the production and delivered its last orders in 1998.587
       (C)       Consortia
(626) Alstom and Bombardier have not entered into any common consortia with each other
       for the development of tram/LRV projects in the last 10 years in the EEA. 588 In the
       last 10 years in the EEA, Alstom has entered into a consortium agreement with
       Kiepe Electric, a subsidiary of Knorr Bremse, for the supply of steel wheel high-
       floor trams to Üstra in Hannover (Germany) in 2011. Bombardier has entered into
       consortia agreements with Kiepe Electric for the delivery of trams/LRVs in Austria,
       Germany, Poland, Sweden and the UK.589
         6.4.2.2. Market shares
(627) The Parties’ activities overlap in steel-wheel trams/LRVs (including the possible
       narrower segments for high-floor and low-floor) in the in the EEA (including
       Switzerland).
(628) The Parties combined position in the overall market trams/LRVs and possible
       market segmentations are indicated in the following table.
587 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 135.
588 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 136.
589 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 137-138.
                                                 125
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---          European suppliers, such as Newag, have been continuously expanding as they offer
         very good responses to customer needs at low costs.595 Finally, the Notifying Party
         points out the recent competitive constraint exerted by non-European suppliers. For
         instance, Asian suppliers such as CRRC and Hyundai Rotem have been expanding
         their tram/LRV businesses in the EEA.596
(633) Second, the Notifying Party claims that the assessment of the Parties’ market shares
         based contestable-only projects shows that the Parties have been less successful at
         winning new contestable tenders. For instance, the Parties together account for only
         [20-30]% of the contestable-only projects in the past 10 years, compared to [30-
         40]% for all (see table 19), contestable and non-contestable projects. Combined
         shares for contestable projects are even lower in the past two years, with the Parties
         accounting for only [20-30]% of the contestable projects in 2018-2019.597
(634) Third, the Notifying Party considers that the Parties are not close competitors.
         Participation data shows that the Parties face most competitive constraint from
         rivals. In the past 10 years, Alstom faced CAF ([60-70]% of all Alstom bids) and
         Stadler ([30-40]%) more frequently than Bombardier (10-20]%). Similarly,
         Bombardier faced Alstom ([20-30]% of all Bombardiers bids) less frequently than
         Stadler ([60-70]% of all Bombardiers bids), Siemens ([…] bids, [40-50]%), CAF
         ([40-50]%), and Škoda ([20-30]%).598 In addition, the Parties lost more to
         competitors (CAF and Stadler) than to each other.599
(635) Fourth, the Notifying Party indicates that the market for steel-wheel trams/LRVs is
         characterised by strong countervailing customer buyer power. Similarly to metros,
         tram/LRV customers are often local or regional public entities who tend to be
         financially constrained and are thus highly price sensitive. Structured tender
         procedures allow customers to procure rolling stock under extremely competitive
         conditions.600
(636) Fifth, the Notifying Party states that the tram/LRV market is characterised by a
         continuous price pressure, which leads customers to increasingly seek out offers
         from lower-cost-base suppliers, including Asian and Eastern European players.
         According to the Notifying Party, the pricing pressure is reflected in the margins
         generated in the tram/LRV segment, which are significantly lower than in other
         rolling stock segments.601
595 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 219-220.
596 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 218.
597 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 143 to 145.
598 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 200-201.
599 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 203.
600 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraph 215.
601 Form CO, Chapter B.3, paragraphs 221-222. For instance, Alstom estimates that its average gross margin
    for trams/LRVs in the past three years was in the range of […]% compared to […]% for metros and
    regional trains. Similarly, Bombardier estimates that its average gross margin for trams/LRVs in the past
    three years was in the range of […]% compared to […]% for metros.
                                                         127
 ---pagebreak---           6.4.2.4. The Commission’s assessment
(637) The merged entity will hold a large market share on all conceivable markets for
        trams/LRVs, especially in the segments for steel-wheel trams/LRVs (and possible
        segmentation between high-floor and low-floor).
(638) However, the Commission considers that, for the reasons set out below, the
        Transaction does not raise serious doubts as a result of possible horizontal non-
        coordinated effects, either through the creation of strengthening of a dominant
        position or otherwise significantly impeding effective competition, in the market for
        the supply of trams/LRVs and possible sub-segments thereof.
(639) First, the merged entity will face the competitive constraint exerted by important
        competitors. In the overall market for trams/LRVs, the merged entity will in
        particular face the competitive constraint exerted by Stadler ([20-30]%) and CAF
        ([10-20]%) and Skoda ([10-20]%). The same applies in the possible market for steel
        wheel trams/LRVs and the possible sub-market for steel wheel low-floor
        trams/LRVs (on both markets, Stadler holds a market share above [10-20]% and
        CAF and Skoda around [10-20]%).
(640) The Parties’ combined market share will be the highest in the market for steel wheel
        high-floor trams/LRVs, in which the merged entity’s market share will amount to
        [40-50]%. However, the increment stemming from the Transaction is very limited
        ([0-5]%) and the merged entity will face competition from two competitors with
        significant market shares (Stadler [20-30]% and Kiepe Electric (Knorr Bremse)602
        [10-20]%).
(641) Second, as stated above, the calculation of market shares on the basis of contestable
        tenders only risk leading to a distorted view of competitive positions to the extent
        that non-contestable orders represent a large portion of the relevant market, as is the
        case in trams/LRVs, where non-contestable (repeat) orders amount to [30-40]% of
        the total market size.
(642) Third, the results of the market investigation indicate that, other competitors, such as
        Siemens, Stadler, CAF, Skoda or CRRC are considered to be credible bidders and
        suppliers603. Accordingly, a large number of competitors interrogated identify
        themselves as close competitors to the Parties for the supply of trams/LRVs on their
        respective market segment.604 This assessment is confirmed by the bidding data,
        which indicates that Stadler and CAF are the most active bidders in the market for
        steel wheel trams and the possible sub-market for low-floor steel wheel trams/LRVs
        (their participation rate is comprised between [20-30]% and [30-40]% according the
        envisaged market). In the market for high-floor steel wheel trams/LRVs, Bombardier
        and Stadler are the most frequent bidders (participation rate at [40-50]% each),
        followed by Knorr Bremse and Siemens). In addition, a majority of competitors
        consider that non-European suppliers for trams/LRVs (such as CRRC, Hyundai
        Rotem, Bonzakaya, Durmalar) have the technical knowledge to submit credible bids
602 Kiepe Electric was previously Vossloh Kiepe and was taken over by the Knorr-Bremse Group in 2017
    (Form CO, Chapter B.3, footnote 235).
603 Q9, replies to questions 75.1. and 75.2.
604 Q8, replies to question 73.
                                                    128
 ---pagebreak---         in tenders organised by EEA customers, even if their presence remains limited in the
        EEA.605
(643) More generally, similarly to metros, the results of the market investigation suggest
        that the market for trams/LRVs in the EEA is less concentrated than other rolling
        stock markets, due in particular to lesser technical barriers to entry. Trams/LRVs are
        indeed less complex vehicles than other types of rolling stock, which allows
        suppliers to enter market with less incurring costs. In that regard, most of customers
        consider that regulatory authorisation processes or investments required to
        participate in tenders do not constitute barriers to enter the trams/LRVs market.606
        For instance, a customer indicated that trams/LRVs are often standard products
        which require ‘much lower investment […] as for metro.’ Likewise, another
        customer indicated that most suppliers ‘have standardized tram/LRV vehicle
        platforms that can be adapted to the individual needs of the contracting Entity.’607
        The lack of particularly high barriers to entry, including for non-European suppliers,
        is confirmed by most competitors. An Asian competitor indicated that ‘Nowadays
        usually suppliers follow the international standards’.608
(644) Fourth, the large number of competitors allows customers to exercise countervailing
        buyer power, as confirmed by the results of the market investigation.609 In addition, a
        majority of customers consider that the transaction will have no impact on their
        bargaining strength, in particular because a sufficient number of competitors will
        remain after the Transaction.610 Competitors generally consider that countervailing
        buyer power depends on the number of suppliers active in the market.611
(645) Finally, overall, the very large majority of customers did not raise concerns related to
        the supply of trams/LRVs, regardless of the possible segmentation, by the merged
        entity.612 Some customers expect efficiencies resulting from the Transaction through
        the mutualisation of the Parties’ internal costs.613
(646) Based on the above, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise
        serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of horizontal
        non-coordinated effects, in particular through the creation or strengthening of a
        dominant position, in the market for the supply of trams/LRVs (and possible
        segmentations).
6.5.    Maintenance and refurbishment
6.5.1. The Notifying Party’s view
(647) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction will not give rise to competitive
        concerns for the following reasons.
605 Q8, replies to question 80.
606 Q9, replies to questions 70.1. and 70.2.
607 Q9, replu to question 71.1.1.
608 Q8, reply to question 80.2.
609 Q8, replies to question 85; Q9, replies to question 91.
610 Q9, replies to question 93.
611 Q8, replies to question 85.1.
612 Q9, replies to question 104.
613 Q9, replies to question 105.1.
                                                          129
 ---pagebreak--- (648) First, the Notifying Party explains that a significant part of the market for
         maintenance services (around [60-70]% in Europe) is not accessible to third party
         maintenance service providers because maintenance services are supplied by the
         customers’ in-house maintenance capabilities.614 The Notifying Party explains that
         the extent to which rail operators can perform rolling stock maintenance and
         refurbishment services in-house primarily is likely to depend on the size and level of
         skills of the operators’ technical team and the size of its fleet; conversely, it does not
         depend on the type of rolling stock.615
(649) Second, the vast of majority of maintenance services not performed in-house by
         customers is supplied by the rolling stock supplier as rolling stock and maintenance
         tenders are carried out simultaneously and typically awarded to the same entity. 616
         The Notifying Party estimates that up to [30-40]% of the total yearly outsourced
         rolling stock maintenance services in the EEA are tendered simultaneously with the
         new rolling stock vehicles.617 The Notifying Party explains that it is rare for OEMs
         to provide maintenance services for rolling stock vehicles manufactured by another
         OEM. Specifically, maintenance services for third-party rolling stock represents c.
         [10-20]% and below [5-10]% respectively of Alstom’s and Bombardier’ total
         maintenance business in the EEA.
(650) The Notifying Party therefore argues that the competitive effects in the market for
         maintenance services are derivative of the principal rolling stock markets. The
         Notifying Party refers to Knorr Bremse/Vossloh, where the Commission found that
         the independent after-market (which includes the service and maintenance of trains)
         mirrored the original equipment market and focused its competitive assessment on
         the effects the transaction in the original equipment market. In that decision, the
         Commission noted that the Parties’ shares were similar, or even lower than in the
         related rolling stock market, and accordingly considered that its competitive
         assessment would not differ if it looked at the aftermarket separately to or together
         with the related rolling stock market.618 The Notifying Party submits that the same
         approach should be applied in the present case. The Parties’ estimated shares in
         maintenance and refurbishment services (provided below) are similar to or lower
         than their shares in most rolling stock markets where they overlap, including very
         high-speed rolling stock, mainline rolling stock, and trams/LRVs.619
(651) Third, according to the Notifying Party, the Parties will continue to face competition
         from a large number of competitors, including (i) experienced railway operators
         often carrying out rolling stock maintenance and refurbishment services in-house or
         even offering maintenance services to rival operators, (ii) rival OEMs such as
         Siemens, CAF, Stadler, Hitachi, Talgo, Newag, Pesa, and Skoda, (iii) independent
614 The Notifying Party refers to railway operators, such as Deutsche Bahn (via its subsidiary Arriva), SNCF
    (via Keolis), Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane (via its overseas subsidiaries), NS (via Abellio), MTR
    Corporation etc., further strengthens the share of these railway operators in the overall maintenance and
    refurbishment market since, in general, their international subsidiaries carry out their own maintenance
    services. See Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 119.
615 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 120-122.
616 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 124-126.
617 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 106. The Notifying Party explains that customers that such an approach
    include PKP, NTV, and HS2.
618 Commission decision in Case M.7358 – Knorr Bremse/Vossloh (2015), recital 36.
619 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 129-130.
                                                         130
 ---pagebreak---          providers620, and (iv) engineering companies (for refurbishment services).
         Furthermore, according to the Notifying Party, the market for rolling stock
         maintenance and refurbishment services has become more fragmented in recent
         years as a result of the deregulation and liberalisation of the rail passenger market.621
6.5.2. The Commission’s assessment
           6.5.2.1. The Parties’ activities
(652) The Parties offer a range of customised rolling stock maintenance services, including
         light and heavy maintenance and refurbishment services.622 The Parties' maintenance
         activities are mainly focused on their own rolling stock fleets. The supply of
         maintenance services for third party rolling stock represents [10-20]% of Alstom's
         total maintenance business in the EEA and less than [5-10]% of Bombardier’s
         maintenance business in the EEA.
           6.5.2.2. The Commission’s assessment
         (A)        Horizontal assessment
(653) The Parties' activities overlap in light maintenance, heavy maintenance and
         refurbishment both at the EEA-wide level, including Switzerland, and national level.
(654) Market data provided under this section are based on the Parties' estimates of the
         overall market for maintenance services in the EEA and at national level, i.e., the
         market for maintenance services including maintenance carried out in-house (around
         [60-70]% of the total market as estimated by the Notifying Party) and outsourced by
         customers to third parties, including rolling stock suppliers. The Notifying Party
         provided market data for the period 2015-2019.623
(655) Table 16 sets out the market share of the Parties and their competitors in the overall
         market for maintenance and refurbishment.
620 Independent providers include Euromaint (Scandinavia), MWG (Germany), ATI Francesco Ventura Srl
    Costruzioni Ferroviarie/Esperia Srl (Italy), Desarrollos de Tecnologia Avanzada (DTA) (Spain), ZNTK
    Mińsk Mazowiecki S.A (Czechia and Poland). See Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 131-133.
621 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 135.
622 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 92-102.
623 The market share data is based on the Notifying Party’s best estimates. However, the Notifying Party
    explains that due to the absence of reliable market data, these share estimates are based on significant
    assumptions and may not be accurate for the following reasons in particular: (i) as UNIFE does not
    provide a split between light and heavy maintenance, the Parties relied on an Alstom’s estimate of the
    total size of these two segments ([…]%), (ii) the Parties’ maintenance sales are not reported for light,
    heavy maintenance and refurbishment services separately. The Parties therefore had to estimate their
    maintenance sales for these three segments, (iii) the Parties are not aware of any reports that estimate
    competitor sales for maintenance services overall, nor at the sub-segment level, and therefore provided the
    Parties’ best estimates. See response to RFI 25 of 3 July 2020, paragraph 4.3.
                                                          131
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---         maintenance depots in the UK.625 A respondent to the market investigation indicated
        that rivals’ ability to compete for maintenance contracts would depend on gaining
        access to the Parties’ depots. This would especially be the case for smaller fleet for
        which it would not be economical to build a new depot.
(662) This concern amounts to a vertical input foreclosure concern and would therefore
        require a showing that the merged entity will have the ability and incentive to
        foreclose access to its maintenance depots.
(663) The merged entity cannot be considered to have the ability of foreclosing access to
        maintenance depots in the UK. The UK’s Railways Act 1993 ensures that
        prospective beneficiaries can obtain access to a light maintenance depot on terms
        that are open, fair and transparent. Access to the Parties’ maintenance depots in the
        UK is therefore regulated in the following way: (i) if the Parties have capacity in a
        maintenance depot and a train operator or a rival OEM wants to use it, the
        operator/OEM can apply to use the depot; in case of a refusal of access despite
        available capacity, the rail regulator for Great Britain (the Office of Rail and Road,
        ‘ORR’) may ask Alstom or Bombardier to grant access to the depot. The ORR also
        oversees the terms of access, and has the power to ensure that they are not
        unreasonable or discriminatory.
(664) Furthermore, based on the Notifying Party’s submission, there are no recent
        instances where rolling stock OEMs have sought to gain access to the maintenance
        depots of rival rolling stock suppliers. Typically, rolling stock OEMs use their own
        depots or the train operators’ depots in some cases. In addition, there are recent
        examples of rolling stock OEMs building new depots after having won a tender to
        supply and maintain a new fleet of trains.626 Therefore, the Transaction will not
        result in any change in the merged entity’s incentives such that there will be negative
        effects on competition in the market for the provision of maintenance services in the
        UK.
(665) As regards possible conglomerate effects, the Commission considers that the
        Transaction does not give rise to any conglomerate effects between rolling stock and
        maintenance services due to the absence of a merger-specific impact. The results of
        the market investigation generally confirm that already before the Transaction
        customers (that do not carry out maintenance in-house) often procure rolling stock
        together with maintenance services at the same time and from the same supplier. In
        addition, the Parties are mainly focusing on providing maintenance services on their
        own rolling stock.
(666) Therefore, the Commission considers that the Transaction, as modified by the
        Commitments, would not significantly impede effective competition in the internal
        market or in the EEA by giving rise to horizontal non-coordinated effects, in
625 Alstom has nine active maintenance depots in the UK: two depots in London (Morden and Golders Green)
    and one depot in each of Nottingham, Wembley, Wolverhampton, Chester, Manchester, Liverpool, and
    Glasgow. Bombardier has 14 sites across the UK where it can carry on maintenance services: four in
    London (East Ham, Neasden, New Cross Gate, and Old Oak), two in Ilford, and one in each of Asfordby,
    Central Rivers, Crewe, Crofton, Derby, Ramsgate, Reading, and Harlesden. See Response to RFI 43 of 20
    July 2020, paragraph 1.2.
626 According to the Notifying Party, Hitachi built a new depot in Kent after winning the Javelin project. See
    Response to RFI 43 of 20 July 2020, paragraph 2.1.
                                                        137
 ---pagebreak---         particular through the creation or strengthening of a dominant position, in the market
        for the supply of maintenance services (and possible segmentations, including the
        possible markets for light, heavy maintenance and refurbishment or the market for
        the provision of maintenance services segmented by type of rolling stock).
6.6.      Components and spare parts
6.6.1. The Notifying Party’s views
(667) As regards components, the Notifying Party explains that the Transaction does not
        lead to an overlap in the Parties’ activities in the sale of rolling stock components in
        the EEA. Alstom’s standalone sales of components are limited to bogies, dampers,
        and switchgears, while Bombardier’s only sells traction converters in the EEA.627
(668) The Notifying Party explains that the Transaction creates a limited number of
        potential vertical relationships between the upstream market for standalone rolling
        stock components and the downstream markets for rolling stock.
(669) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction will not result in input foreclosure
        because the merged entity will not have the ability or incentive to foreclose
        downstream competitors or to increase their costs. According to the Notifying Party,
        Alstom and Bombardier have very limited sales of standalone components and
        accordingly the Parties have no market power in any upstream market for the supply
        of components. In addition, post-Transaction, there will be numerous alternative
        suppliers of components in the EEA which will be able to supply the Parties’
        downstream competitors, including Siemens, Hitachi, Hyundai-Rotem, Skoda,
        CRRC and Talgo, as well as specialist component suppliers such as ABB, Wabtec,
        and Knorr-Bremse. The Notifying Party states that in any event, rival rolling stock
        suppliers typically produce components internally. Any attempt to foreclose
        downstream competitors or to increase prices for standalone components would
        therefore be ineffective.628
(670) The Notifying Party argues that the merged entity will not have the ability or
        incentive to engage in customer foreclosure or to increase its downstream
        competitors’ costs. The Notifying Party explains that the Parties produce their
        components internally, and neither Party has purchased any bogies, dampers,
        switchgears, or traction converters on the open market (including from each other) in
        the past three years. Accordingly, the Transaction will not decrease the demand for
        upstream suppliers.629 Moreover, several customers of rolling stock components
627 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 72 and 73. For completeness, the Notifying Party submits that even in
    an overall market including all rolling stock components, the Transaction does not give rise to competition
    concerns because (i) the Parties’ have very limited standalone sales of rolling stock components in the
    EEA, (ii) there are many suppliers, including other rolling stock suppliers and specialist component
    suppliers, and (iii) competitive effects in the market for components stem from the principal rolling stock
    markets.
628 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 74-76.
629 A supplier of wireless communications solutions for railways active in France expressed the view that
    post-Transaction, the merged entity will be able to exclusively rely on Alstom’s subsidiary Nomad Digital
    for such digital technology, while Bombardier is procuring such solutions from another component
    supplier. The market participant considers that the Transaction will create a monopoly in France and thus
    will prevent Nomad Digital’s competitors from selling their offerings to a sufficient customer base.
    However, the Commission notes that the market for the supply of components for rolling stock is EEA-
                                                           138
 ---pagebreak---          (including all major rolling stock operators) will remain accessible to competing
         suppliers post-Transaction.630
(671) With regard to components that Alstom produces internally and Bombardier
         purchases from external suppliers (switchgears and dampers), the Notifying Party
         submits that Bombardier will have no ability or incentive to cease purchasing these
         components as a result of the Transaction. The Notifying Party estimates that
         Bombardier represents a modest proportion (and materially less than 30%) of the
         overall EEA demand for such components. The Notifying Party considers that
         Bombardier will not have an incentive to cease purchasing switchgears and dampers
         from external suppliers as a result of the Transaction. These are largely
         commoditised products and represent a negligible portion (e.g., less than [0-10]%) of
         the overall production cost of a trainset. There would therefore be little to no
         financial gain from sourcing such components exclusively from Alstom, even
         assuming it would be marginally cheaper to do so.631
(672) As regards spare parts, the Notifying Party submits that there is no overlap between
         the Parties’ sales of spare parts in the EEA. Alstom had no sales of spare parts to
         other rolling stock suppliers in the EEA (and only minimal worldwide sales), and
         Bombardier only re-sells minor quantities of third-party spare parts in the EEA.632
(673) The Notifying Party also states that the Transaction will not result in input
         foreclosure because the merged entity will not have the ability or incentive to
         foreclose downstream competitors or to increase their costs.
(674) As regards ability, Alstom does not have any standalone sales of spare parts in the
         EEA, and Bombardier only re-sells minor quantities of third party spare parts in the
         EEA. In addition, the Parties typically supply spare parts directly to rolling stock
         operators as part of maintenance services and do not sell spare parts to other rolling
         stock suppliers. Furthermore, according to the Notifying Party, to the extent that
         there are opportunities for standalone sales to other rolling stock suppliers,
         downstream competitors can source from a number of other suppliers, including
         rolling stock supplier or from specialist spare parts suppliers, including market
         leaders Knorr-Bremse and Wabtec Faiveley, as well as Valdune, THH, and national
    wide and that post-Transaction there will remain alternative rolling stock suppliers that will continue to
    purchase components. Furthermore, the Notifying Party explained that each of the Parties produces
    wireless communications solutions as part of their signalling solutions for railways (of which there are
    many kinds) but typically in collaboration with third-party suppliers of radio or 4G wireless technology.
    Therefore, neither of the Parties fully produces wireless communication solutions internally. The Parties
    are also not aware of other rolling stock suppliers that fully manufacture wireless technologies internally.
    On that basis, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not give rise to any customer
    foreclosure concerns with regard to the supply of wireless communication solutions.
630 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 77.
631 Response to RFI 35 of 8 July 2020, paragraph 5.4.
632 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 78-79. The Parties’ sales at the world-wide level are very limited, i.e.,
    Alstom and Bombardier’s worldwide sales would account for c. [0-5]% and [0-5]% respectively (and [0-
    5]% combined) based on UNIFE’s data and Parties’ estimates. For completeness, in the Notifying Party’s
    view, the Transaction will also not give rise to competition concerns in a potential market for spare parts
    for the following reasons: (i) most rolling stock spare parts are commodities, (ii) there is no competition
    for captive spare parts that must be sourced from the OEM because other suppliers do not have the
    necessary IP or because their spare parts are not compatible with the platform, (iii) the Parties focus on
    their own installed base and are not close competitors, (iv) sophisticated buyers exert significant
    countervailing buyer power. See Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 80.
                                                          139
 ---pagebreak---         or regional spare part suppliers such as ZNTK Mińsk Mazowiecki (Czech Republic,
        Slovakia, Poland, and Baltics), Vialis (Netherlands), and Mantena (Norway and
        Sweden).
(675) As regards incentive, the Notifying Party also explains that spare parts for rolling
        stock only represent a negligible cost of rolling stock project because the cost of
        standalone spare parts required over a vehicle lifecycle typically represent less than
        c. 1% of the overall value of a rolling stock project. Therefore, the merged entity will
        not have an incentive for a hypothetical price increase of rolling stock spare parts.633
(676) The Notifying Party also states that the Transaction will not result in customer
        foreclosure because the merged entity will not have the ability or incentive to engage
        in customer foreclosure or to increase its downstream competitors’ costs. This is
        because in the Notifying Party’s view, opportunities for sales of spare parts to other
        rolling stock suppliers are rare and spare parts are typically supplied directly to
        rolling stock operators. In the EEA, Alstom and Bombardier do not sell spare parts
        to other rolling stock suppliers.
6.6.2. The Commission’s assessment
          6.6.2.1. Components
        (A)        The Parties’ activities
(677) Alstom’s sales of components to third-party rolling stock manufacturers (outside of a
        consortium or sub-supply agreement)634 in the EEA are limited to bogies, dampers,
        and switchgears. The majority of Alstom’s standalone component sales in the EEA
        are switchgears (sold to Hitachi in the UK). Sales of bogies derive from one project
        only.635 For completeness, Alstom also has minimal EEA (re)sales of pumps
        purchased from third-party suppliers.636 Alstom’s external sales of bogies in the
        period 2017-2019 accounted for less than [0-5]%; its sales of dampers for [10-20]%
        and its sales of switchgears for [5-10]% (on an order intake basis).
(678) Bombardier’s standalone component sales in the EEA are limited to traction
        convertors in the EEA.637 Bombardier’s external sales in the EEA in the period
        2017-2017 accounted for less than [0-10]%.638
633 Form CO, Chapter D, paragraphs 81-82.
634 Alstom’s scope of work under consortium agreements with other rolling stock suppliers sometimes
    involves the supply of components, such sales are not considered as standalone component sales where the
    overall scope of work of the consortium is the delivery of trains (as such activities are already counted
    towards Alstom’s shares in the relevant rolling stock market). For instance, Alstom sells bogies
    [Confidential information on an Alstom consortium arrangement]. These sales amounted to EUR […] in
    FY 2018/19.
635 In March 2018, Montreux-Oberland Bahn (MOB) ordered a fleet of 20 gauge-changing coaches from
    Stadler, which sourced gauge-changing bogies from Alstom. The first car will be delivered in spring 2020.
636 These sales amounted to less than EUR […] annually over the past three years.
637 The Notifying Party explains that while Bombardier supplies stand-alone traction motors and bogies, it
    has only done so outside the EEA in the past five years. These sales amounted to c. EUR […] in 2019. See
    Form CO, Chapter D, paragraph 56.
638 Response to RFI 35, paragraph 4.4.
                                                         140
 ---pagebreak---         (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(679) The Commission notes that the Transaction does not give rise to any horizontal
        overlaps in the supply of components in the EEA.639 Based on the Notifying Party’s
        submission, Alstom’s sales of components on a stand-alone basis are limited to
        bogies, dampers, and switchgears and Bombardier’ to traction converters.
(680) The Commission also investigated whether post-Transaction, the merged entity will
        increase its buyer power for the purchase of components from third party suppliers
        and whether this would have a negative impact on them.
(681) The market investigation provided mixed views as to whether the Transaction will
        endow or reinforce the Parties’ buyer power.640 Nevertheless, the Commission notes
        that the Parties’ combined share of third-party purchases for components, including
        bogies, dampers, switchgears, traction converters, body shells do not exceed 30% in
        the EEA. With regard to dampers and switchgears, Alstom estimates that it accounts
        for a negligible portion of purchases from third party suppliers because it
        manufactures dampers and switchgears internally. Bombardier purchases these
        components from third party suppliers but estimates that it accounts for less than
        30% of purchases of such components.641 In addition, the Commission considers that
        post-Transaction, there will remain other major purchasers of these components in
        the EEA such as Stadler, CAF, Hitachi, Pesa, Newag, Skoda, and Talgo.
(682) Furthermore, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not give rise to
        any vertical effects for the following reasons.
(683) As regards input foreclosure, the Commission considers that the merged entity will
        not have the ability or incentive to foreclose rival rolling stock OEMs from access to
        components. The Parties’ market share in the supply of each separate component at
        the EEA-wide level, including Switzerland, is well below 30%. The Commission
        also notes that there are alternative suppliers for all components that the Parties
        currently supply to third parties, including rolling stock OEMs such as Siemens,
        Hitachi, Hyundai-Rotem, Skoda, CRRC and Talgo, as well as specialist component
        suppliers such as ABB, Wabtec, and Knorr-Bremse. Therefore, the Transaction does
        not give rise to any input foreclosure concerns.
(684) Second, with regard to customer foreclosure, the Commission similarly considers
        that the merged entity will not have the ability or incentive to engage in customer
        foreclosure.
(685) With regard to ability, as indicated at 682, the Parties and their competitors
        manufacture the major part of their components internally for captive use. Based on
        the Notifying Party’s submission, the Parties also source a number of other more
        standardised components from third parties. The Parties have also identified two
        components that are manufactured by Alstom (switchgears and dampers) which
        Bombardier purchases from external suppliers. Alstom is not aware of any
639 The Transaction only creates a theoretical horizontal overlap with regard to bogies. However,
    Bombardier’s bogies sales exclusively relate to the ICx project and [Information on Bombardier’s ICx
    contract with Siemens].
640 Q10, replies to questions 16 and 17.
641 Response to RFI 43, paragraph 3.1.
                                                       141
 ---pagebreak---         component that Bombardier produces which it currently purchases from external
        suppliers. The results of the market investigation did not provide any information to
        contradict this statement. According to Knorr-Bremse, in the short-term it will not be
        possible for the merged entity to completely cease procuring components from
        external suppliers. Knorr-Bremse also explains that in addition to this not being
        possible or a likely scenario, it has not been the ‘communicated plan’.642
(686) The merged entity will similarly not have an incentive to stop purchasing
        components from third party suppliers. Post-Transaction, the merged entity is likely
        to continue purchasing components not already manufactured internally for captive
        use due to product differentiation and the need to incorporate various components in
        the trainset. Components that Alstom produces internally and Bombardier purchases
        from third party suppliers (switchgears and dampers) represent a negligible
        proportion (less than [0-10]%) of the production costs of a trainset such that any
        hypothetical gain from ceasing to purchase components from third parties is
        immaterial.
(687) The Commission further considers that, in any event significant demand for these
        components will remain post-Transaction from the Parties’ competitors in the
        downstream market such that the Transaction will not lead to any negative effects as
        a result of customer foreclosure.
          6.6.2.2. Spare parts
        (A)        The Parties’ activities
(688) Alstom’s sales of spare parts in the EEA are limited for use in its own trains and it
        does not sell spare parts for use on third-party platforms (unless as part of
        maintenance services contracts). In the EEA, Alstom sells spare parts only to its own
        installed base. Alstom also licences the intellectual property for certain components
        to rolling stock operators, who can then manufacture spare parts.643
(689) Bombardier does not actively sell rolling stock spare parts on a standalone basis in
        the EEA. Bombardier almost exclusively supplies spare parts in the context of
        providing other aftermarket services, such as overhauls, retrofit, repair, maintenance,
        and modernisation solutions.
        (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(690) The Commission considers that the Transaction does not lead to any horizontal
        overlaps between the Parties’ activities with regard to spare parts because Alstom
        has no stand-alone sales to other rolling stock suppliers in the EEA and Bombardier
        only acts as a reseller of minor quantities of third party spare parts.
642 Knorr-Bremse’s response to Q10, question 14.1.
643 In some cases, Alstom has also licensed its IP rights to enable rolling stock customers to manufacture the
    spare parts themselves or in partnership with a third party, or to source directly from Alstom’ sub-
    suppliers. For completeness, in 2018, Alstom created Station One, an online marketplace allowing third-
    party spare parts suppliers and customers to trade spare parts. Alstom recently began using this as a sales
    channel for its own spare parts. However, Station One is still at a nascent stage of development, and
    generated negligible sales of less than EUR […] in 2019. See Form CO, paragraphs 50-53.
                                                         142
 ---pagebreak--- (691) The Commission further considers that any vertical effects of the Transaction can
         also be excluded. The Parties have very limited, if any, spare parts sales to other
         rolling stock OEM. The Parties and other rolling stock suppliers typically sell spare
         parts directly to train operators. The results of the market investigation confirmed
         that customers typically procure spare parts from the supplier of rolling stock, in any
         event during the warranty period.
(692) In addition, to the extent that spare parts for a given train type are not protected by
         any IP rights, there are alternative suppliers for ‘non-critical’ spare parts, including
         Knorr-Bremse and Wabtec Faiveley, as well as Valdune, THH and other regional or
         national suppliers.
(693) Therefore, the Commission considers that the Transaction does not raise serious
         doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of horizontal non-
         coordinated effects or vertical effects, in relation to the markets for rolling stock
         components and spare parts in the EEA (and Switzerland).
           6.6.2.3. Sub-supply agreement with Siemens for the supply of ICx components
(694) In 2011, Siemens was awarded a tender to supply Deutsche Bahn up to 300 high-
         speed ICx trains.644 On 3 May 2011, Siemens entered into a supply agreement with
         Bombardier, whereby Siemens sub-contracts to Bombardier around […]% of the
         scope of its contract with Deutsche Bahn (the ‘Supply Agreement’). As part of the
         Supply Agreement, Bombardier supplies Siemens with [Confidential details of
         Bombardier’s scope of work under the Supply Agreement] related to the ICx trains
         ordered by Deutsche Bahn in the frame of its contract with Siemens.
(695) Deutsche Bahn’s orders to Siemens for the provision of the ICx trains amount to a
         total value of €[…], of which Bombardier’s scope in these orders amounts to
         €[…].645
(696) In the course of the market investigation, Siemens submitted that the merged entity’s
         incentives to deliver quality inputs on time under the Supply Agreement will
         significantly deteriorate due to the Transaction. In that regard, it explained that the
         merged entity would benefit from Siemens’ weakened reputation as a high-speed and
         very high-speed supplier, and vis-à-vis Deutsche Bahn in particular. According to
         Siemens, Alstom is its main competitor for Deutsche Bahn’s upcoming high-speed
         and very high-speed tenders. Therefore, weakening Siemens’ reputation vis-à-vis the
         customer would directly translate into softer competition in future Deutsche Bahn
         tenders to Alstom’s benefit. Moreover, according to Siemens, the Supply Agreement
         is insufficient to ensure on time delivery of quality inputs in case of change of
         control of Bombardier, because the agreement was drafted for a scenario of
         Bombardier remaining a stand-alone player and having strong incentives to deliver
         quality inputs in a timely manner. As a consequence, pursuant to the Supply
644 The ICx train is a high-speed platform with a maximum speed of 250 km/h. It is only operated in
    Germany by Deutsche Bahn. To date, Deutsche Bahn has ordered 137 trains, of which Siemens has
    delivered 44.
645 Form CO, Chapter B.1, paragraph 100.
                                                   143
 ---pagebreak---         Agreement, Bombardier bears only a small share of the adverse effects (including
        penalties) triggered by delays or quality issues.646
(697) Siemens’ claims in this respect amount to asserting a vertical foreclosure concern,
        whereby the merged entity will have the ability and incentive to degrade
        Bombardier’s compliance under the Supply Agreement. However, contrary to
        Siemens’ assertions, a breach of Bombardier’s contractual obligation would lead to
        significant financial damages and lost income for the merged entity, which would
        not be offset by profits or other benefits resulting from a potential total or partial
        input foreclosure vis-à-vis Siemens in the context of its contract with Deutsche
        Bahn.
(698) First, the Supply Agreement contains several provisions which expose Bombardier
        to substantial damages in case of failure in relation to quality and delays.
(699) The Supply Agreement sets out performance obligations aiming at preventing
        Bombardier deteriorating or delaying the performance of its obligations. It contains
        [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract with Siemens].647
(700) In addition, , the Supply Agreement sets out that, should Deutsche Bahn holds
        Siemens liable for any issues with Bombardier’s scope of work, Siemens has the
        contractual right to seek redress from Bombardier and seek for significant financial
        compensation. In that regard, the Supply Agreement contains provisions related to
        [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract with Siemens]. Specifically, the Supply
        Agreement provides that, if Deutsche Bahn claims financial compensation from
        Siemens related to delays caused by Bombardier, [Information on Bombardier’s ICx
        contract with Siemens].648 Furthermore, under the Supply Agreement, if, for reasons
        imputable to Bombardier, Deutsche Bahn terminates its contract with Siemens,
        [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract with Siemens].649 In addition, if
        Deutsche Bahn withholds payment to Siemens for reasons imputable to Bombardier,
        [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract with Siemens].650
(701) Second, as explained above, the total value of the ICx contract is €[…] based on the
        exercised call-off of 137 trains ordered to date. As of March 2020, the outstanding
        value of Bombardier’s scope of work was c. €[…]. The Commission notes that the
        merged entity stands to receive the vast majority of the outstanding value, since so
        far only […] of a potential 300 trains have been delivered to Deutsche Bahn.651
        Therefore, revenues that the merged entity can reasonably expect after the
        Transaction from the delivery of Bombardier’s obligations with respect to the
        Supply Agreement are substantial.
646 Siemens’ submission, 21 April 2020.
647 Section 6.1.4 of the Supply Agreement.
648 Section 6.1.1 of the Supply Agreement. In addition, if requirements related to Bombardier’s scope of work
    are not met, Bombardier is obliged to [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract with Siemens]. If
    Deutsche Bahn claims that there has been improper performance of the project which is related to
    Bombardier’s scope of work, and if Bombardier is unable or unwilling within a reasonable period to
    remedy such claims (e.g., to repair the defects identified), [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract with
    Siemens].
649 Section 11.3.1 of the Supply Agreement.
650 Section 11.3.2 of the Supply Agreement.
651 Form CO, Annex D.1, paragraph 33.
                                                           144
 ---pagebreak--- (702) Third, the merged entity’s commercial opportunities in relation to the potential sale
         to third parties suppliers of components that are currently delivered by Bombardier
         to Siemens appear limited. In that regard, the Supply Agreement states that
         Bombardier [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract with Siemens].652 In
         addition, the potential demand for such components outside the ICx is unlikely,
         since, as indicated by the complainant itself in relation to [Components covered by
         Bombardier’s scope], the concerned components are specifically tailored to
         Deutsche Bahn’s specifications and intend to meet this specific customer’s needs in
         relation to the ICx train.
(703) Fourth, a partial or total input foreclosure strategy would significantly harm
         Alstom’s reputation, notably vis-à-vis Deutsche Bahn, which has a right to carry out
         quality checks in Bombardier’s facilities during the manufacturing process. Such a
         strategy would necessarily damage Alstom’s credibility in the context of future
         tenders issued by Deutsche Bahn.
(704) Finally, the Commission notes that the Notifying Party indicated in the Form CO
         that, in relation to Bombardier’s obligation vis-à-vis Siemens in the frame of the
         Supply Agreement, ‘Alstom is fully committed to executing the ongoing
         subcontracting agreement.’653
(705) It follows from the above that the merged entity will not have the ability or incentive
         to implement a partial or total input foreclosure strategy vis-à-vis Siemens for the
         supply of the exterior design, the production and design of the steel car bodies, the
         manufacture of the trailer bogies, and the final assembly of end coaches and some
         intermediate coaches related to the ICx trains ordered by Deutsche Bahn.
7.       MARKET DEFINITION - MAINLINE SIGNALLING
7.1.       Introduction
(706) Rail signalling systems provide safety controls on rail networks. At their most basic
         level, these systems avoid collisions by preventing two trains from meeting on the
         same section of track. Rail signalling systems comprise both trackside 654 and on-
         board elements.
(707) The rail signalling industry is characterised by the following key elements:
         (a)      On the supply side, it is a concentrated industry with a limited number of
                  players and high barriers to entry.
         (b)      On the customer side, on-board signalling equipment is purchased by rolling
                  stock manufacturers or train operators (depending on whether intended for
                  installation on new trains or on existing train fleets), while the track-side
                  signalling equipment is purchased by infrastructure managers (for mainline
652 Section 5.6 of the Supply Agreement, which provides that [Information on Bombardier’s ICx contract
    with Siemens].
653 Form CO, Chapter B.1 paragraph 140.
654 Trackside and wayside are used interchangeably in this Decision. Narrowly defined, trackside elements
     are specifically those elements located immediately beside the track, while wayside elements also include
     those elements located at a slightly greater distance from the track and the train.
                                                           145
 ---pagebreak---                  signalling). The deregulation of rail markets has resulted in additional small
                 (or smaller than traditional players) private operators in certain Member
                 States.
(708) The signalling industry has developed in the context of national standards for
        signalling systems (referred to as ‘conventional’, ‘legacy’ or ‘class B’ systems). New
        signalling technologies have been developed at European level to harmonise the
        various national systems (see below, section 7.1.5). However, the adoption of
        harmonised standards has been slower than planned and the installed base in the
        EEA still consists mostly of legacy signalling technology.
(709) Finally, rail signalling involves multiple elements, both installed on-board and on
        railroad tracks, which must interoperate, together with the rolling stock running on
        the network.
(710) Signalling equipment can be divided into mainline signalling which equips the
        national railway networks and urban signalling which equips the local railway
        networks such as metro and light rail. The present section and section 8 will focus on
        the mainline signalling markets. Urban signalling is assessed in sections 9 and 10.
(711) Mainline signalling refers to signalling systems that provide safety and controls on
        mainline railway networks (including dedicated high-speed lines).
(712) The various elements of mainline signalling systems, or sub-systems, consist of
        interlockings, Automatic Train Protection (‘ATP’) systems and Operation and
        Control Systems (‘OCS’). Interlockings and ATP systems constitute the safety level
        of mainline signalling, while OCS represents the control level. 655
7.1.1. Interlockings
(713) Interlockings are the core safety component of mainline signalling systems.
        Interlocking systems are wayside systems that protect and set routes for the safe
        movement of trains by controlling and preventing access to sections of the track to
        avoid collisions, including side-impact, rear and head-on collisions. The interlocking
        system is composed by a set of signal apparatus that prevents trains from conflicting
        movements by only allowing trains to receive authority to proceed, when routes have
        been set, locked and detected in safe combinations.
(714) Interlockings in mainline signalling systems typically work on a principle of splitting
        a track up into sections or ‘blocks’. These blocks can be as short as 200m to 800m in
        stations and as long as several kilometres on open tracks. Interlockings ensure that
        no more than one train enters a block at any one time. Interlockings must interface
        with adjacent or intersecting interlockings, and with other signalling systems such as
        ATP and OCS systems.
(715) Interlockings work by (i) receiving information from wayside sensors (track circuits
        and/or axle counters) about whether a specific block is vacant or occupied by a train;
        (ii) calculating safe routes for trains based on that information; (iii) controlling
        machines that move the rail at junctions to allow trains to transfer from one track to
655  Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 566 and Form CO, Chapter
     C.1.a, paragraph 5.
                                                  146
 ---pagebreak---         another; and (iv) issuing movement authorities to trains to allow them to travel, i.e.
        instructing through signals the train drivers how to proceed, e.g. to continue, to
        reduce speed, or to stop.
(716) Broadly speaking there are two types of interlockings: older, non-electronic ones
        (most commonly relay interlockings) and modern, electronic interlockings, which
        are a combination of hardware and software and are implemented through computers
        rather than older technologies (computer-based interlocking or ‘CBI’).656
7.1.2. ATP systems
(717) Train protection systems were developed to reduce the risk that train drivers fail to
        respond to signalling commands and ignore track restrictions such as gradients or
        speed. ATP systems are designed to protect each individual train by ensuring that the
        train obeys the movement authority granted by the interlocking and the appropriate
        line speed of a track section. ATP systems include both on-board units (‘OBUs’) and
        wayside systems.
(718) The ATP wayside system receives the signalling commands from the interlocking
        and transmits this information either:
           to a balise or transponder,657 which then transmits signalling information to the
               train via an antenna (‘intermittent ATP system’); or
           to a wayside encoder transmitting information, via cable or radio, to the train
               (‘continuous ATP system’).
(719) The ATP OBU receives the signalling information from the antenna and implements
        safety procedures, such as sending warnings to the driver, or stopping or slowing the
        train. Different levels of ATP systems provide different levels of protection. A basic
        ATP system may cause an alarm to sound in the train cabin where the driver failed to
        obey a signal, a more advanced ATP system can intervene where a train driver fails
        to modify the train’s behaviour by applying the emergency brake, and an even more
        advanced ATP system can control the speed of a train by applying the brakes of a
        train in response to a signal from the interlocking or based on maximum track speed
        information programmed into the system. 658
7.1.3. OCS
(720) OCS are IT solutions designed for the overall management of railway networks and
        operate at a higher level than the other subsystems that form part of a signalling
        project, such as interlockings and ATP systems. OCS have monitoring components
        for signalling sub-systems and command components controlling signalling sub-
        systems. The core OCS functionalities respond to safety requirements, i.e. OCS
        operate networks of interlockings and integrate the information generated by
656  Commission Decision in Case. M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beaty/JV (2007), paragraph 16;
     Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 567-569 and Form CO, Chapter
     C.1.a, paragraphs 6-8.
657 A balise is an electronic beacon or transponder placed between the rails of a railway as part of an ATP
     system. Balises provide localisation information whenever a train passes over them.
658 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 570-572 and Form CO, Chapter
     C.1.a, paragraphs 9-13.
                                                        147
 ---pagebreak---         interlockings and their field elements and ATP systems. Thereby, OCS can be
        connected to different ATP systems and a diversity of connected interlockings in a
        national or regional infrastructure according to the signalling rules and the
        operational context defined by the railway infrastructure manager. These functions
        may be referred to as operational or control-level functions. Additional
        functionalities, without safety requirements, that are used for the overall
        management of the railway to increase network efficiency are often also included in
        OCS. These may include automatic conflict detection and conflict resolution
        support, timetable management, decision support, and dispatching. These functions
        are often referred to as dispositive, or management-level functions.
(721) The operational (or control-level) functionalities of OCS operate networks of
        interlocking, and the OCS is connected to the installed interlockings by means of
        interfaces. These may be proprietary to the suppliers of the OCS and/or the
        interlockings or, in the alternative, they may be standardised. The interlockings-OCS
        interface manages a list of controls and indications, relevant for OCS. Similarly, an
        interface may also be required between the OCS and the ATP systems.659
7.1.4. Certification and authorisation
(722) Each subsystem requires certification and authorisation, which is typically needed
        for the signalling components included in the system and for the signalling
        subsystem in its entirety, including the functionality of the subsystem and the
        interfaces between the various signalling systems or components in the network. The
        term ‘authorisation’ is used to describe the whole process, covering both (i) the
        certification by an independent body, both at EU level and at Member State level
        (for all signalling systems and components), that the signalling system complies with
        the relevant required technical standards, and (ii) the authorisation at Member State
        level by the National Safety Authority (‘NSA’) to place the component or system in
        service. Authorisation occurs at the national level only after the certification has
        been completed.660
7.1.5. Interoperability and standardisation
(723) Interoperability among the various signalling subsystems and interoperability with
        the rolling stock have to be ensured. Mainline signalling projects typically require
        installation of systems compatible with the signalling system on the wider network.
        Most countries have national operational rules and technical requirements for
        mainline signalling with which any project in that country must comply.661
(724) The mainline signalling industry is characterised by a standardisation process, in
        particular at European level. Measures have been taken to improve the
        interoperability and safety of national networks and to encourage the development of
        an integrated rail system leading to a single European rail area, as outlined in the
659 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 573-574 and Form CO, Chapter
     C.1.a, paragraphs 14-15.
660 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 575.
661 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 576 and Form CO, Chapter
     C.1.a, paragraphs 19-20.
                                                   148
 ---pagebreak---         2011 transport white paper.662 With the adoption and implementation of the 4th
        Railway Package663 the period of structural changes in the railway sector should be
        concluded. The technical pillar of the 4th Railway Package664 has reviewed and
        optimised the regulatory framework on interoperability and safety and strengthened
        the role of the European Railway Agency (‘ERA’). However non-standardised
        national systems will remain on parts of the network for many years, and non-
        standardised national equipment for rolling stock will remain necessary.
(725) There are more than 50 legacy ATP systems across Europe, including multiple
        systems within some individual Member States. Each legacy system is standalone
        and cannot interoperate with other legacy systems. In order to travel, a train must
        have an ATP OBU that is compatible with each wayside ATP system it will
        encounter. For example, a train running from Genoa to Rotterdam would have to be
        equipped with at least three legacy ATP on-board systems, to enable it to receive
        information from legacy wayside ATP systems in Italy, Germany and the
        Netherlands. The requirement that a train must have an OBU compatible with each
        country it enters raises operating and maintenance costs for cross border traffic: the
        installation of additional OBUs is costly and takes up space in the train cabin, and
        switching operating standards at national borders (or within a country to the extent
        there are multiple national systems) adds to travel time and requires train drivers to
        be familiar with the respective national signalling rules and ‘signalling language’.
(726) The European Rail Traffic Management System (‘ERTMS’) is the European
        standard for the ATP. It has been developed to address the interoperability issues
        caused by legacy systems and enhance cross-border railway traffic, lower costs and
        promote competition between signalling suppliers. It allows a train equipped with an
        ERTMS on-board device made by any supplier to run on track sections equipped
        with ERTMS devices made by other suppliers.
(727) ERTMS is a control, command, signalling and communication system. It is
        composed of (i) the European Train Control System (‘ETCS’)665 and the (ii) Global
        System for Mobile Communications – Railways (‘GSM-R’).
(728) ETCS is an ATP that continuously ensures that the train does not exceed the safe
        speed and distance. In addition, it provides the relevant information to support the
        task of the train driver.
(729) GSM-R is the European radio communications standard for railway operations.
662 Whiter paper – Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource
    efficient transport system, 28 March 2011, COM(2011)0144 final.
663 The 4th Railway Package is a set of 6 legislative texts designed to complete the single market for rail
    services (single European railway area). Its overarching goal is to revitalise the rail sector and make it
    more competitive vis-à-vis other modes of transport. It comprises a ‘technical pillar’ and a ‘market
    pillar’.
664 The ‘technical pillar’, which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in April 2016,
    includes Regulation (EU) 2016/796 on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing
    Regulation (EC) n° 881/2004; Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the interoperability of the rail system within
    the European Union (Recast of Directive 2008/57/EC); and Directive (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety
    (Recast of Directive 2004/49/EC).
665 For the purpose of the assessment of the Transaction, the terms ERTMS and ETCS will nevertheless be
    used interchangeably.
                                                       149
 ---pagebreak--- (730) ETCS is divided into 2 subsystems: on-board and trackside. On-board components
        include: the ETCS on-board unit (‘OBU’); the Driver Machine Interface (‘DMI’),
        i.e. the interface between the driver and the ETCS; and the train interface, i.e. the
        interface that allows the ETCS to exchange information and issue commands to the
        rolling stock. Trackside components include: the Euro-balises666, i.e. balises which
        comply with the ETCS specification (also called ‘ETCS balises’); the Lineside
        Electronic Unit (‘LEU’), i.e. the interface between the Euro-balise and the
        interlocking; and the Radio Block Centre (‘RBC’), i.e. a device acting as a
        centralised safety unit which, using radio connection via GSM-R, receives train
        position information and sends movement authorisation and further information
        required by the train for its movement.
(731) ETCS systems have different ‘Baselines’ and ‘Levels’:
        (a)      ETCS Baselines: Baseline is a stable kernel in terms of system functionality,
                 performance and other non-functional characteristics. Any system needs to
                 evolve, and new functions and corrections might be needed. ETCS ‘Baseline
                 2’’is the first complete set of requirements, considered as interoperable, and
                 to be adopted at European level. ETCS ‘Baseline 3’ is a controlled evolution
                 of Baseline 2 that includes new additional functions and backward
                 compatibility with Baseline 2.
        (b)      ETCS Levels: ETCS Levels are defined based on how the wayside is
                 equipped and based on how the information is transmitted to the train.
Figure 1: Overview of ETCS (Level 1 and Level 2)
                                 Source: Form CO, Chapter C.1.a, Figure 1
(732) ETCS Level 1 includes a LEU that encodes or ‘translates’ the signalling information
        received from the interlocking for standardised transmission to the Euro-balise, and
        then to the train. This signal aspect is then read by the European Vital Computer
666 A Euro-balise is a passive device that lays on the track, storing data (fixed or switchable, i.e. with the
    possibility of changing information content) related to the infrastructure, such as speed limits, position
    references, gradients, etc..
                                                       150
 ---pagebreak---        (‘EVC’), and is displayed on the driver's cab. ETCS Level 1 also requires some other
       equipment on the train (such as a radar, EVC and the juridical recording unit, which
       is the equivalent of an aircraft’s ‘black box’). Level 1 also includes a safe output to
       the braking system to ensure the train obeys the signalling information.667
(733) ETCS Level 2 uses GSM-R, the developed standard for radio based communication
       for trains in Europe, to provide continuous transmission of signalling information to
       a train equipped with on-board ERTMS equipment. Encoding of interlocking
       information takes place via the RBC. The shift to radio based communication means
       that there is no need for either visible wayside signals or LEUs. As a result, the
       wayside infrastructure can be reduced when ETCS Level 2 signalling is installed.
       One benefit of this is that it is possible to increase the capacity on a line at lower
       cost: the line can be divided into shorter blocks (which may allow for shorter
       distances between trains) without needing to install signal lights at each block. ETCS
       Level 2 requires some additional equipment on the train, e.g. a GSM-R mobile radio
       device, including an antenna. Euro-balises are still used in Level 2 systems, but only
       for positioning information.668
(734) There are proposals to introduce a third ETCS level. ETCS Level 3, like ETCS Level
       2, would be based on a radio solution. The main difference is that, in ETCS Level 3,
       train integrity would be evaluated by a train-borne system, rather than wayside
       sensors, further reducing wayside equipment and simplifying interlockings. The
       train’s position, as in ETCS Levels 1 and 2, would be determined based on
       information received from Euro-balises (or satellite positioning) and combined with
       accurate train-borne odometry. As in ETCS Level 2, the train’s position would be
       reported back to the RBC continuously. This constant updating of train integrity,
       position and speed would allow following trains to run closer to the one in front by
       adjustment of the movement authority information displayed to the driver. Some
       constituents required for ETCS level 3, such as train integrity monitoring devices are
       currently under development. In addition, an intermediate level, Hybrid Level 3 –
       combining level 2 and level 3 – is being specified. Some infrastructure managers
       have already placed contracts for deploying Hybrid level 3, and next expected
       trackside tenders will require the same. There is no clear timeline for the roll-out of
       ‘pure’ ETCS Level 3. ETCS Level 3 aspects such as train integrity should be
       included the next time the ERTMS standards are updated, in 2022 and any roll-out
       of the technology in Member States will be after that date.669
(735) ERTMS originated with a 1989 working group of European transport ministers who
       suggested developing an interoperable ATP system for Europe. In order to develop
       and implement an interoperable system, it was necessary to create technical
       specifications supporting interoperability. The ERTMS specifications were
       ultimately developed by the Union signalling industry (‘UNISIG’), a group of
       European signalling companies (at the time, Alstom, Bombardier, CSEE, Invensys,
       Siemens and Thales) under the leadership of the Union and the ERA670 as the system
667 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 585 and Form CO, Chapter C.1.a,
    paragraphs 30-31.
668 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 586 and Form CO, Chapter C.1.a,
    paragraphs 32-35.
669 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 587 and Form CO, Chapter C.1.a,
    paragraph 36.
670 ERA is in charge of management, change and production of the specifications related to ERTMS.
                                                    151
 ---pagebreak---         authority and in close cooperation with railway stakeholders and the GSM-R
        industry.
(736) The main benefits of ERTMS include interoperability between different national rail
        networks (for example an ETCS OBU on a French train can interoperate with the
        wayside ETCS equipment in Belgium), supporting interoperability between the
        equipment of different suppliers (for example an ETCS OBU from Bombardier can
        interoperate with wayside equipment installed by Alstom); and providing a common
        safety platform for taking steps towards further benefits (such as ATO, autonomous
        driving, moving block, satellite positioning, and harmonised braking behaviour of
        trains).671
(737) The Technical Specifications of Interoperability for Control Command and
        Signalling (‘TSI CCS’), a Commission Regulation672, is the legal basis of ERTMS
        specification. It includes the definition of the essential requirements, the subsystem
        and interface functional and technical specifications, and also determines the
        necessary list of constituents and interfaces and procedures for their assessment.
        ETCS systems must respect these specifications in order to meet the essential
        requirements and to ensure the interoperability of the Union's rail systems. National
        technical rules, in part driven by legacy signalling requirements, can produce
        national specificities in the deployment of ERTMS. 673
(738) At the end of September 2019, around 5.750 km of core network corridor674 lines
        were operational with ERTMS and some 13,800 vehicles were equipped or
        contracted with ETCS in the EU, a substantial part of which has been supported by
        the EU funding. The current ERTMS European Deployment Plan (EDP) has the
        following deployment goals: 51 000 km of core network corridors and 66 700 km of
        the wider core network for 2030, and 123 000 km of comprehensive network for
        2050.675 Figure 2 shows the value of ERTMS contracts in the 2012-2017 period.
671 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 582 and Form CO, Chapter C.1.a,
    paragraph 27.
672 Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/919 of 27 May 2016 on the technical specification for
    interoperability relating to the ‘control-command and signalling’ subsystems of the rail system in the
    European Union.
673 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 583 and Form CO, Chapter C.1.a,
    paragraph 28.
674 As defined in Article 2(14) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
    Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU)
    No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013,
    page 129).
675 Form CO, Chapter C.1.a, paragraph 39; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/6 of 5 January
    2017 on the European Rail Traffic Management System European Deployment plan.
                                                      152
 ---pagebreak---             Figure 2: ERTMS Europe market size, contract value (EUR million)
                                         €1.317,7
              €931,9
                                                                        €438,8
                                                         €297,1                       €281,3
                           €202,7
               2012         2013           2014           2015           2016          2017
                               Source: Form CO, Chapter C.1.a, Figure 2
(739) Concerning interlockings, EULYNX is a European initiative by 13 infrastructure
        managers to standardise interfaces between components of an interlocking and
        between interlockings and other signalling subsystems, for example ATP.676 The
        project aims to create a system architecture for interlockings, including standardised
        interfaces, with the ultimate goal of reducing lifecycle costs up to 50%, by the so-
        called ‘Reference Implementations’, which allow for standardisation and
        digitalisation of interlocking interfaces and the possibility of implementation of
        different subsystems by different suppliers. Compared to ERTMS/ETCS, the
        EULYNX project is significantly less advanced.677
7.2.       Relevant markets
(740) Both Alstom and Bombardier have a broad product portfolio covering essentially all
        types of mainline signalling.
(741) The Parties' activities lead to horizontally affected markets (i) in mainline signalling
        projects, specifically interlockings, ETCS wayside ATP, ETCS OBUs and OCS (see
        section 8.2.1) and (ii) in mainline signalling products, specifically track circuits,
        legacy OBUs, interlocking equipment, relays and Euro-balises (see section 8.3.1
        below).
(742) The Transaction also leads to vertically affected markets in the supply of track
        circuits and relays as an input for the downstream markets for mainline wayside
        signalling projects (namely interlocking projects and ETCS ATP wayside re-
        signalling projects) (see section 8.3.2 below).
(743) In the following section, the Commission analyses the product and geographic
        market definition for:
              mainline signalling projects, namely: (i) standalone interlocking projects; (ii)
                  ETCS ATP wayside overlay projects678 (standalone ETCS ATP wayside);
676  Bane NOR (NO), CFL (LU), DB Netze (DE), Infrabel (BE), Liikennevirasto (FI), Network Rail (UK),
     ProRail (NL), RFI (IT), SBB (CH), SNCF (FR), Slovenske Zeleznice (SI), OBB (AT) and Trafikveket
     (SE).
677 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 588-589 and Form CO, Chapter
     C.1.a, paragraph 40.
678 Overlay projects designate projects that are put on top of existing mainline signalling systems. In an
     ETCS wayside ATP overlay project, an ETCS wayside ATP system is laid on top of existing
                                                      153
 ---pagebreak---                   (iii) ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects679 including ETCS ATP
                  wayside and interlockings; (iv) ETCS OBU projects; (v) legacy OBU
                  projects; (vi) OCS; and
              mainline signalling products.
7.2.1.     Product market definition
           7.2.1.1. Segmentation between mainline signalling and urban signalling
         (A)        The Notifying Party’s views
(744) In line with Commission’s precedents, the Notifying Party considers urban and
         mainline signalling projects separately for the purpose of the assessment of the
         Transaction.
         (B)        The Commission’s decisional practice
(745) In previous cases, the Commission considered whether the market for railway
         signalling could be further subdivided according to the rail network type.680
(746) In Siemens/Invensys Rail, the Commission found that the technology required for
         railway signalling projects for mainline was more sophisticated than the technology
         for urban transit and that, therefore, the projects for mainline were more
         expensive.681 The exact market delineation of the relevant product market(s) was
         ultimately left open as the notified operation did not raise serious doubts under any
         plausible market definition.682
(747) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission found that the two types of signalling systems
         served different needs, were based on different technologies and standards, required
         different technical solutions and were sold to different customers. These differences
         ruled out demand-side substitutability as urban customers could not or needed not
         use mainline signalling solutions in urban transport and mainline customers could
         not or needed not use urban solutions in mainline transport.683 Further, even though
         most suppliers were present in both fields, the differences between the two fields
         were substantial and thus excluded supply-side substitution. Therefore, the
         Commission concluded that there was a distinction between mainline signalling and
         urban signalling. 684
     interlockings. The ETCS supplier must, therefore, develop an interface between the ETCS wayside ATP
     system and the existing interlockings.
679  Re-signalling projects designate installation of new mainline signalling systems. In an ETCS wayside
     ATP re-signalling project, the ETCS wayside ATP system and new interlockings are installed together.
680  Commission Decision in Case M.4337 – Thales/Alcatel Divisions Transport et Systèmes (2006), recitals
     14 and 19; Commission Decision in Case M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV (2007), recital 12;
     Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recital 11.
681  Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recital 11.
682  Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 19 and 23.
683  One potential intersection is suburban lines that are not closed loop. In these cases the signalling solution
     needs to be interoperable with the entire network but due to the density of traffic CBTC can also be
     deployed. However, even in this case, the two types of systems are used together as opposed to
     substitutes.
684  Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 614-617.
                                                           154
 ---pagebreak---        (C)        Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(748) The results of the market investigation broadly confirm the Notifying Party's views
       with regard to the segmentation based on rail network type.
(749) All respondents indicated that mainline signalling and urban signalling should be
       distinguished from one another.685 Respondents considered several factors that
       differentiate the two sectors: different rail network type, different types of
       technology, different customers (national or regional railway operators, large
       infrastructure managers or railway undertakings, for mainline, vs. local operators for
       urban signalling) and different customers’ requirements. Moreover, mainline
       projects are more complex technologically (large, open networks with complex
       junctions compared to mass transportation projects), more expensive, awarded in
       more burdensome tender procedures and more challenging for suppliers because
       mainline signalling has to be compatible with a wider network. 686
(750) Therefore, the Commission concludes that there is a distinction between mainline
       signalling and urban signalling.
         7.2.1.2. Segmentation between mainline signalling projects and mainline
                   signalling products and services
       (A)        The Notifying party’s views
(751) In line with Commission’s precedents, the Notifying Party considers signalling
       products separately from signalling projects. In relation to signalling services (i.e.
       maintenance), the Notifying Party explains that signalling services are typically only
       supplied by the Parties as part of a warranty agreement included in a signalling
       project. Neither Party provides services for third party signalling systems to any
       material extent and, as a result, neither is active in the merchant market for signalling
       services. Therefore, the Notifying Party considers that the exact market delineation
       of the relevant product market(s) can be left open as the Transaction would have no
       impact on the market for the provision of signalling services.
       (B)        The Commission’s decisional practice
(752) In previous cases, the Commission distinguished signalling projects from signalling
       products.687
(753) The Commission considered that railway signalling projects are comprehensive
       solutions involving project-specific engineering, development and project
       management, procurement of the necessary equipment, installation, testing and, in
       most cases, maintenance. For their part, railway signalling products are signalling
       components used in railway signalling projects.688 The exact market delineation of
       the relevant product market(s) was ultimately left open as the notified operation did
685 Questionnaire 5 addressed to competitors in mainline signalling (“Q5”), replies to question 5;
    Questionnaire 6 addressed to customers in mainline signalling (“Q6”), replies to question 4.
686 Thales’ response to Q5, question 3.1.
687 Commission Decision in Case M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV (2007), recitals 10 and 14;
    Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recital 6.
688 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 7 and 20.
                                                       155
 ---pagebreak---        not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market under any
       plausible market definition.689
(754) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission found that mainline signalling projects and
       mainline signalling products belong to separate relevant markets: in contrast to sales
       of mainline signalling products, the mainline signalling purchased on a project basis
       include not only the equipment itself, but also the system adaptation, engineering,
       project management, and other services required to install, validate and put the
       system into operation. Infrastructure managers are interested in a signalling solution
       in which each element works seamlessly together as a whole. The building up of
       such a well-functioning mainline signalling system entails significant risk that
       customers are not willing to bear and prefer leaving to the mainline signalling
       supplier. The project management capabilities of a supplier are, in fact, a key factor
       used in evaluating bids. 690
       (C)         Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
(755) The results of the market investigation broadly confirm the Notifying Party's view
       that mainline signalling projects should be considered separate from mainline
       signalling products.
(756) The vast majority of respondents indicated the relevance of this distinction, in light
       of the existence of a specific demand for such products, as spare parts, in addition to
       purchases incurred in the context of signalling projects.691 It has been submitted that
       the large majority of mainline signalling systems in the EEA are purchased on a
       project or frame-contract basis rather than on a product basis. Projects include the
       system adaptation, engineering, project management, and other services required to
       install, validate and put the system into operation. Conversely, products are sold
       without supporting services such as engineering and project management. 692
(757) The Commission's therefore concludes that mainline signalling projects and mainline
       signalling products belong to separate relevant markets.
(758) The majority of the participants to the market investigation also confirmed that
       maintenance services and/or spare parts are generally supplied together with
       mainline signalling projects.693 The results of the market investigation showed that
       mainline signalling services are generally purchased for a fixed period of time and
       the duration for which they are provided depends on the customer's requirements. 694
(759) In any event, since neither Party supplies signalling services to third parties, the
       question whether there is a distinct market for services can be left open as the
       Transaction will have no impact on the merchant market for the provision of
       signalling services.
689 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 19 and 23.
690 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 622.
691 Q5, replies to question 4; Q6, replies to question 5; Questionnaire 7 addressed to customers in OBU
    signalling (“Q7”), replies to question 4.
692 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 4.1.
693 Q5, replies to question 13; Q6, replies to question 14.
694 Q5, replies to question 13.1; Q6, replies to question 14.1.
                                                          156
 ---pagebreak---         7.2.1.3. Segmentation by mainline signalling sub-systems
      (A)       The Notifying Party’s views
(760) In line with Commission’s precedents, the Notifying Party identifies the following
      sub-segments within the mainline signalling sector: legacy OBU projects; ETCS
      OBU projects; legacy ATP wayside projects; standalone ETCS ATP wayside (so-
      called overlay) projects; standalone interlocking projects; OCS projects; and ETCS
      ATP wayside re-signalling projects (bundles of ETCS ATP wayside and
      interlockings).
(761) Although in general the Notifying Party agrees on the market segmentation
      mentioned in the previous paragraph, it submits that the distinction between ETCS
      ATP wayside overlay and re-signalling adopted by the Commission in previous
      cases would not be warranted.
(762) According to the Notifying Party, the Commission’s finding seems to be based on
      the existence of a specific customer demand for re-signalling projects, and on the
      fact that ETCS ATP systems and interlockings would form an ‘inseparable bundle’
      when tendered together by a customer. Nevertheless, a customer’s decision to opt for
      a re-signalling project instead of an overlay project reflects the customer’s
      procurement strategy rather than a demand for re-signalling projects that is distinct
      from overlay projects. For example, a customer may prefer to always procure the
      sub-systems separately in order to preserve the technical and economic advantages
      of the individual systems..
(763) According to the Notifying Party, several factors plead in favour of an overall
      market for ETCS projects. In particular:
      (a)     On the demand side, the decision between whether to tender an overlay
              project or a re-signalling project would not be necessarily clear cut. The
              decision will rest not only on the age of the installed interlockings (and
              whether they are newly-installed or nearing the end of their lifecycle), but
              also other customer preferences such as preferred procurement size, preferred
              number of incumbent suppliers, budget, and other strategic considerations.
      (b)     On the supply side, most suppliers offer both ETCS ATP wayside and
              interlockings, and these suppliers are equally able to deliver re-signalling
              projects (that is, projects that include wayside ATP ETCS combined with
              interlockings) or ETCS overlay projects. Whether procured as an overlay
              project and a standalone interlocking project or as a re-signalling project it is
              the exact same products that are at stake. As a result, a narrow focus on order
              intake shares on the (much smaller) overlay segment would ignore the fact
              that competition for overlay projects will include constraints from suppliers
              that have significant activities in re-signalling.
      (c)     Overall, essentially the same players would be active in both overlay and re-
              signalling. While the need for interlockings could in theory limit the set of
              competitors able to compete for re-signalling (although even here they have
              the option for re-signalling contracts to be fulfilled by consortia of ETCS and
              interlocking suppliers) – there is nothing that would limit suppliers of re-
              signalling projects from also being competitors for overlay projects.
                                                  157
 ---pagebreak--- (764) In any event, the Notifying Party submits that for the purpose of the Transaction, the
        exact delineation of the relevant product market can be left open, because the
        Transaction will not give rise to competitive concerns, regardless of the precise
        market definition adopted.
        (B)        The Commission’s decisional practice
(765) In Siemens/Invensys Rail, the Commission considered the market for railway
        signalling projects and explained that it included four key systems, namely: (i)
        interlocking systems consisting of signals, trackside sensors, point machines, and
        electronic interlockings; (ii) ATP, consisting of both conventional and ETCS ATP
        systems; (iii) OCS; and (iv) level crossing systems.695
(766) The Commission also analysed whether the market should be further subdivided
        according to the rail network type (mainline/urban), the (interlocking) technology
        applied (non-electronic/electronic), and the size of the project.696 However, the exact
        definition of the relevant product market was ultimately left open.697
(767) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission concluded that mainline signalling projects
        should be further segmented, with the following separate relevant product markets
        defined: (i) legacy OBU projects; (ii) ETCS OBU projects; (iii) legacy ATP wayside
        projects; (iv) standalone ETCS ATP wayside (so-called overlay) projects; (v)
        standalone interlocking projects; (vi) ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects
        (bundle of ETCS ATP wayside and interlockings).698
        (C)        Results of the market investigation and the Commission’s assessment
(768) The Commission considers that mainline signalling projects should be further
        segmented by subsystem, namely ATP, interlockings, and OCS. For ATP systems, a
        distinction should also be made between OBUs and wayside ATP, between legacy
        and ETCS technology, and between overlay and re-signalling projects. A re-
        signalling ATP project covers not only ETCS wayside ATP but also interlockings.
        Each of these (sub-)segmentations constitutes a separate product market.
(769) The vast majority of the participants to the market investigation consider that
        mainline signalling projects should be segmented by subsystem, namely ATP,
        interlockings, and OCS.699 It has been submitted that the mentioned subsystems
        include different products and technologies and have different functionalities.
        Moreover, although in general the main signalling suppliers would have in their
        portfolio all of them, there would also be signalling suppliers which could offer only
695 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recital 8.
696 In case Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV (2007), the Commission considered a possible segmentation of
    railway signalling projects by project size, with three categories: small (value below EUR 8 million),
    medium-size (value between EUR 8 million and EUR 75 million) and large (value above EUR 75
    million) projects. In Siemens/Invensys Rail the Commission also considered that a segmentation based on
    size could be justified and reflected in different prices and technical complexity required for small,
    medium and large projects; see Commission Decision in Case M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV
    (2007), recital 12 and Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recital 19.
697 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 9, 19.
698 Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 699.
699 Q5, replies to question 5; Q6, replies to question 6; Q7, replies to question 5.
                                                          158
 ---pagebreak---        part of them. 700 Another competitor submitted that from the demand perspective, a
       substantial number of customers buys ATP, interlockings and OCS separately. From
       the supply perspective, each sub-system is highly complex and fundamentally
       different.701
       (C.i)       ATP
         a)         ATP wayside and OBU projects
(770) The Commission considers that ATP projects should be sub-segmented between
       ATP wayside and OBU projects, each constituting a separate product market,
       consistently with the market definition adopted in Siemens/Alstom.702
(771) With regard to ATP, the market investigation confirms that wayside ATP and on-
       board ATP equipment should be treated separately.703 The two are not substitutable
       neither from the demand or supply side; they have different functionality, are
       purchased by different customers, and can be supplied by different suppliers on a
       given network.
(772) OBUs and wayside ATP perform different functions. While wayside ATP receives
       information from the interlocking and communicates this information to the passing
       trains, the OBU receives this information and transmits it to the train driver.
(773) OBUs and wayside ATP are generally procured separately from one another by
       different customers.
         b)         Legacy and ETCS projects
(774) The Commission considers that, as found in Siemens/Alstom,704 ATP wayside and
       OBU projects should be segmented into legacy and ETCS projects, each constituting
       a separate product market.
(775) The vast majority of the respondents to the market investigation also confirm that
       ATP projects, both wayside ATP and OBUs, should be further segmented between
       conventional/legacy systems and ETCS systems.705
(776) Such segmentation is justified because legacy systems are essentially local and
       cannot fulfil interoperability functionalities required by ETCS systems. ETCS
       present functionalities absent in legacy systems: continuous communications with
       the train, supervision of braking curves, in-cab signalling whereas legacy is more
       dependent on wayside equipment.706 ETCS and legacy standards are not
       interoperable and thus require different wayside and on-board equipment. As the
       underlying technology is different, there is no supply-side substitution.707 Moreover,
700 GCF Generale Costruzioni Ferroviarie’s response to Q5, question 5.1
701 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 5.1.
702 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 660-665.
703 Q5, replies to question 6; Q6, replies to question 7; Q7, replies to question 6.
704 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 666-669.
705 Q5, replies to question 7; Q6, replies to question 8; Q7, replies to question 7.
706 Thales’ response to Q5, question 7.1.
707 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 7.1.
                                                          159
 ---pagebreak---        the approval procedures are different: while ETCS requires a Notified Body
       certification of ERTMS equipment, legacy (national) systems are approved in a
       national process. Further, for legacy (national) systems, there is usually no approval
       process for individual products. ETCS, being a new technology, is subject to a much
       more sophisticated testing process to get the system up and running. 708
         c)         Re-signalling and overlay projects – ATP wayside projects
(777) The Commission considers that, as found in Siemens/Alstom709 and contrary to the
       Notifying Party’s view, ATP wayside projects should be distinguished in overlay
       and re-signalling projects, each constituting a separate product market.
(778) The vast majority of the respondents to the market investigation support such
       segmentation, due to complexities associated to the development of the interface to
       ensure compatibility of the system in overlay projects.710 The results of the market
       investigation show that overlay ATP projects have more complex interfaces and can
       be executed also by signalling suppliers which have not developed interlockings for
       the specific market. 711 Moreover, tenders for overlay projects confer a significant
       incumbency advantage on the supplier with the installed base. Competing in an
       overlay project is much more costly for a competitor that does not have the installed
       base advantage. On the contrary, such incumbency advantage does not exist for re-
       signalling projects.712
(779) However, respondents to the market investigation have also indicated that, from a
       technical point of view, signalling solutions for re-signalling or overlay projects do
       not differ much as the main components of the system remain the same and suppliers
       that are able to provide re-signalling projects can also offer overlay projects. As a
       result, the competitive conditions are similar for re-signalling and overlay projects
       with the same set of suppliers bidding for and winning both re-signalling and overlay
       projects. The main differentiator is a significant higher degree of complexity in
       overlay projects due to the interfacing needs to the existing equipment installed.713
(780) In this respect, the Commission notes that the largest mainline signalling suppliers in
       Europe, including the Parties, are actively pursuing both types of projects. Their
       capacity to do so does not disprove, however, the differences between the two types
       of projects, in particular in terms of technical requirements for interfaces and overall
       technical complexity, or the specific customer demand for one or the other type of
       project, not least in view of the interface risk that procuring interlockings and ETCS
       ATP wayside separately entails for the customer.
708 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q6, question 8.1.
709 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 670-677.
710 Q5, replies to question 8; Q6, replies to question 9.
711 GCF Generale Costruzioni Ferroviarie’s response to Q5, question 8.1
712 Progress Rail’s response to Q5, question 8.1
713 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 8.1.
                                                          160
 ---pagebreak---           d)          OBUs for new rolling stock and OBUs for retrofitting existing rolling
                      stock
(781) The Commission does not consider that a segmentation of OBUs into separate
        product markets based on installation, i.e. new rolling stock or retrofitting existing
        rolling stock,714 is warranted, as already found in Siemens/Alstom.715
(782) The vast majority of competitors consider that OBU projects should not be further
        segmented between (i) retrofitting rolling stock (i.e. replacing the OBU on an
        existing train) and (ii) installing OBU for new rolling stock, on the basis that both
        types of project cover the same products. 716 A respondent submitted that retrofit and
        installation on-board new rolling stock projects are addressed with the same
        products, for the same customers.717
(783) Similarly, customers confirmed that OBU projects should not be further segmented
        between (i) retrofitting rolling stock and (ii) installing OBU for new rolling stock, as
        the OBU products are largely independent of installation conditions and can
        generally be used both for retrofit and in new rolling stock.718
(784) However, respondents to the market investigation explained that certain elements of
        differentiation exist. In particular:
        (a)       for new rolling stock, OBUs are generally purchased as part of the rolling
                  stock to be delivered and, thus, often selected by the rolling stock OEM.
                  Conversely, the ability of a rolling stock operator to choose between the
                  products of different suppliers when retrofitting its existing fleet with OBU
                  depends very much on the accessibility of technology and information that
                  facilitate interfacing with other signalling sub-systems and train control
                  equipment;719
        (b)       in retrofitting projects, there is a significant dependence from the original
                  supplier of the rolling stock, who can effectively frustrate a third party ETCS
                  supplier. Hence, the market for retrofitting existing rolling stock would have
                  other requirements for the supplier than the market for OBUs for new rolling
                  stock.720 Another competitor referred to the exceptional situation arising from
                  the technological and regulatory shift to the ERTMS standard that is the
                  reason for ETCS OBU retrofit projects: since each train platform is specific,
                  the integration work will differ depending on the type of platform and the
714  Retrofit projects are organised by a rail operator to enable existing rolling stock to operate on routes with
     ETCS wayside signalling equipment. This requires the retrofitting (i.e. the installation) of an ETCS OBU
     on the train. A retrofit project does not involve the installation of a legacy OBU as the train is already
     equipped with it. However it may involve replacing the legacy OBU by a special transmission module
     (“STM”). This is provided by the legacy supplier. For new build rolling stock the ETCS supplier will
     need to purchase the legacy equipment and the relevant documentation, or alternatively an STM, from the
     legacy supplier (see Form CO, Annex C.1.a – II.B.1 and retrofit analysis provided by Siemens on 11 May
     2020). For more details see section 8.2.2 below.
715  Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 678-682.
716  Q5, replies to question 9.
717 Thales’ response to Q5, question 9.1.
718 Q6, replies to question 10; Q7, replies to question 8. Banedanmark’s response to Q7, question 8.1.
719 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q6, question 10.1.
720 Stadler’s response to Q5, question 9.1.
                                                           161
 ---pagebreak---                   rolling stock supplier must be closely involved in retrofit projects because of
                  the need to integrate a new element into an existing design. Therefore, for the
                  purposes of non-horizontal analyses of retrofit projects, the supplier offering
                  to retrofit the existing train with ETCS OBUs will need the cooperation of
                  the original rolling stock supplier.721
(785) In this respect, the Commission considers that those elements, although relevant, are
        not sufficient to contradict the clear result of the market investigation that a
        distinction between OBUs projects for new rolling stock and OBUs projects for
        retrofitting activities is not warranted. The Commission considers in particular that
        for both new rolling stock and retrofitting activities, suppliers, customers and
        products generally coincide. Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledges that in
        retrofitting activities there is a specific element – connected to the necessary
        interface of the OBU to be installed with the rolling stock to be retrofitted – that can
        have a certain impact on the competitive conditions. Although this does not seem to
        warrant the identification of a specific, distinct market, the Commission will
        consider this aspect in the competitive assessment of the market of ETCS OBUs.
          e)         Segmentation by ETCS level
(786) The Commission considers that, as found in Siemens/Alstom,722 there is no need to
        define separate product markets for ETCS wayside ATP and ETCS OBU projects
        based on ETCS level (namely ETCS Level 1, ETCS Level 2 and ETCS Level 3).
(787) The vast majority of the participants to the market investigation, both competitors
        and customers, submitted that ETCS wayside ATP and ETCS OBU projects based
        on different ETCS levels form part of the same market, in light of similar conditions
        for competition and supply-side substitution.723 The results of the market
        investigation also show that even though ETCS level 1 on the one hand and ETCS
        levels 2 and 3 on the other hand have different architectures, there are some
        similarities: (i) all pursue the same purpose: interoperability between systems; (ii)
        interfaces have similar complexity to handle; (iii) all three do answer to the same
        customers; and (iv) all suppliers are able to provide an ETCS level 1 and 2 and are
        working on the development of ETCS level 3. Furthermore, being incumbent on
        ETCS level 1 appears to be a competitive advantage when upgrading to level 2, as
        the supplier has the knowledge of the interfaces with existing systems.724
          f)         Segmentation by project size
(788) The Commission considers that there is no need to define separate product markets
        for ATP wayside overlay and re-signalling by project size, consistently with the
        market definition adopted in Siemens/Alstom.725
(789) In the market investigation, the majority of the competitors submitted that a
        distinction of the mentioned projects by size would not be necessary. 726 It has been
721 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 9.1.
722  Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 683-686.
723  Q5, replies to question 10; Q6, replies to question 11; Q7, replies to question 9.
724  Thales’ response to Q5, question 10.1.
725  Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 699.
726  Q5, replies to question 11.
                                                           162
 ---pagebreak---        argued that although the projects may vary in size, the market would be the same and
       that to quantify which one is a small project and which one a large project would be
       subjective to the clients view and any arbitrary value used to distinguish such
       projects would be unlikely to consider the specific complexities of an individual
       project.727 The difficulty to set a precise threshold is confirmed by the fact that the
       only two participants to the market investigation in favour of a distinction between
       small and large projects, mentioned two very different thresholds (20 and 100
       million Euro).728
(790) With respect to customers, none of them considered it necessary to define separate
       product markets for ATP wayside overlay and re-signalling by project size.729
       (C.ii)      Interlockings
(791) The Commission considers that, as found in Siemens/Alstom,730 standalone
       interlocking projects constitute a separate product market, distinct from re-signalling
       projects involving the supply of both ETCS ATP wayside systems and interlockings.
(792) The majority of competitors that responded to the market investigation, submitted
       that standalone interlocking projects constitute a separate product market, noting in
       particular that standalone interlocking projects can be undertaken by separate
       suppliers in a wider market than re-signalling projects as there are generally more
       suppliers with the relevant expertise available to a client for these works.731 The
       result was mixed with respect to customers.732
(793) There exists, in fact, a distinct demand for standalone interlocking projects. The
       tender data submitted by the Parties indicates that in the period 2010-2019, a
       significant number of standalone interlocking projects were tendered in a series of
       EEA countries.733
(794) The Commission also considers that there is no need to define separate product
       markets for standalone interlockings projects based the type of technology used. The
       Commission has not received indications that the market for standalone interlocking
       projects should be further segmented between non-electronic technology and
       computer-based technology. The Commission notes, however, that non-electronic
       interlockings are becoming an outdated technology.
(795) The Commission also considers that there is no need to define separate product
       markets for standalone interlockings based on project size, in line with the
       arguments presented in paragraphs (788)-(789).
       (C.iii)     OCS
(796) The Commission considers that OCS projects constitute a separate product market.
727 Ferrovial’s response to Q5, question 11.1.
728 Thales’ and Progress Rail’s responses to Q5, question 11.1.
729 Q6, replies to question 12.
730 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 687-691.
731 Q5, replies to questions 12 and 12.1.
732 Q6, replies to question 13.
733 Form CO, Annex C.1.a –V.C.5.a.
                                                        163
 ---pagebreak--- (797) There exists a distinct demand for OCS projects. The tender data submitted by the
       Parties indicates that in the period 2010-2019, a significant number of OCS projects
       were tendered in a series of EEA countries.734
(798) Furthermore, the results of the market investigation did not indicate that the market
       for OCS projects should be further segmented according to the different levels of
       OCS (sometimes referred to as ‘operational’ or ‘control level’ and ‘dispositive’ or
       ‘management level’). As a result, no further market segmentation based the
       type/level of OCS is warranted.
(799) The Commission also considers that, at this stage, there is no need to define separate
       product markets for OCS projects based on project size, in line with the arguments
       presented in paragraphs (788)-(789).
         7.2.1.4. Mainline signalling products
       (A)       The Notifying Party’s views
(800) As mentioned in paragraph (751), the Notifying Party considers mainline signalling
       products separately from mainline signalling projects, for the purpose of the
       assessment of the Transaction.
(801) Furthermore, the Notifying Party has treated each type of signalling product as a
       separate product market.735 Concerning Euro-balises, the Notifying Party has
       considered a separate market for Euro-balises as the narrowest plausible product
       segment.
       (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(802) In Siemens/Invensys Rail, the Commission referred to the distinction between
       interlocking equipment and point machines and identified other products that may
       constitute separate mainline signalling product markets, namely track circuits, track
       signals, conventional OBUs, relays, and balises. Regarding balises specifically, the
       market investigation suggested that ‘ETCS balises and conventional balises belong
       to different markets’ due to lack of substitutability and ‘significant investment and/or
       lead time’ required for switching from the production of conventional balises to
       ETCS balises. The Commission ultimately left the product market definition open
       with regard to all signalling products.736
(803) In Siemens/Alstom the Commission considered that the different signalling products
       are not substitutable to each other, as each product is used for a different purpose by
       the customer.737 For the purpose of that specific case, it considered a separate
       product market for interlocking equipment.738
734 Form CO, annex C.1.a –V.C.5.a.
735 Form CO, Chapter C.4.
736 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 20-23.
737 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 1201.
738 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 1204.
                                                   164
 ---pagebreak---       (C)        The results of the market investigation and the Commission’s assessment
(804) The majority of respondents to the market investigation, both competitors and
      customers, have confirmed that the segmentation considered in Siemens/Alstom
      between mainline signalling projects and mainline signalling products remains
      valid.739
(805) The results of the market investigation did not depart from the Notifying Party's
      views and the Commission's most recent decisional practice according to which each
      signalling product constitutes a separate market.
(806) The Commission further considers that there is no demand-side substitutability for
      the different signalling products since each is used for a different purpose. Moreover,
      there are different suppliers for different signalling products.
(807) Therefore, for the purposes of the present decision the Commission considers that
      each signalling product constitutes a separate product market.
(808) Regarding balises specifically, the Commission considers that, the reasons justifying
      a segmentation between conventional and ETCS ATP systems (see paragraph (776))
      are equally applicable, as Euro-balises are an ERTMS component involving
      demanding performance requirements, high safety targets and a stringent
      authorisation procedure. The Commission, therefore, considers that conventional
      balises and Euro-balises belong to different markets.
        7.2.1.5. Conclusions on product market definitions in mainline signalling
(809) For the purpose of the assessment of the Transaction, the Commission's view is that
      mainline signalling and urban signalling are separate markets. Within mainline
      signalling, signalling projects and products constitute separate markets.
(810) In addition, mainline signalling projects should be further segmented, with the
      following separate relevant product markets defined:
        –      Legacy OBU projects;
        –      ETCS OBU projects;
        –      Legacy ATP wayside projects;
        –      Standalone ETCS ATP wayside (so-called overlay) projects;
        –      Standalone interlocking projects;
        –      ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects (bundle of ETCS ATP wayside
               and interlockings);
        –      OCS.
739 Q5 – Mainline signalling – Questionnaire to competitors, question 4; Q6 – Mainline signalling –
    Questionnaire to customers, question 5.
                                                  165
 ---pagebreak--- (811) Finally, each mainline signalling product constitutes a separate market, with a further
       segmentation in conventional balises and Euro-balises being considered for the
       purposes of the present decision.
7.2.2.   Geographic market definition
         7.2.2.1. Mainline signalling projects
       (A)       The Notifying Party's views
(812) As regards ETCS OBUs projects and ETCS wayside projects, the Notifying Party
       submits that there would be a number of factors that plead in favour of a market
       including EEA and Switzerland:
       (a)     Switzerland has also adopted the ETCS standard. Switzerland was an early
               adopter of ERTMS, committing to an ERTMS strategy as early as 2000.
               More than 1000 trains are currently fitted with ERTMS to operate on the
               national network, and today ETCS on-board units are required for network
               access with Level 2 mandatory on certain lines;
       (b)     Participation in tenders in Switzerland concerns broadly the same set of
               competitors as in the EEA.
(813) In any case, the Notifying Party submits that the exact delineation of the relevant
       geographic market can be left open because the Transaction would not give rise to
       competitive concerns, regardless of the precise market definition adopted for ETCS
       OBUs projects and ETCS wayside projects (i.e. EEA-wide or EEA with
       Switzerland).
(814) With respect to interlockings, the Notifying Party submits that the exact delineation
       of the relevant geographic market can be left open because the Transaction would
       not give rise to competitive concerns, regardless of the precise market definition
       adopted (i.e. EEA-wide or national).
(815) As regards OCS, the Notifying Party submits that several factors plead in favour of a
       EEA-wide market:
       (a)     Although OCS systems require adaptation to national specificities (each
               country having its own operational rules which need to be taken into account
               by control and management systems), network operators usually seek to ease
               the entry of new suppliers in their respective national markets by organizing
               international tenders with flexible requirements, when possible, for
               developing the national specifications. In some cases, countries even choose
               to swap to nation-wide OCS, thereby replacing the old infrastructure, which
               allows new players to enter with innovative solutions quite easily and at fair
               conditions.
       (b)     From a supply-side substitutability point of view, the same Baseline of OCS
               systems developed by the respective suppliers are used in each Member State
               after adaptation.
       (c)     Market share data for OCS systems tenders across the EEA reveals the same
               set of competitors who typically have orders in a number of EEA countries.
                                                166
 ---pagebreak---         (d)      The Canonical Data Model (‘CDM’) standardization initiative developed
                 under Shift2Rail is expected to lower the cost of entry and expansion for new
                 OCS suppliers. The CDM initiative aims to enable interoperability between
                 different services on the Traffic Management and Control level and
                 facilitating market entry.740
(816) The Notifying Party further submits that there would not be national barriers to entry
        or national homologation that would prevent an OCS supplier with a particular
        solution competing in new countries in the EEA:
        (a)      Prior homologation is not necessary to win or bid in OCS projects, as
                 authorization typically takes place at a project level;
        (b)      Suppliers have solutions that allow them to compete throughout the EEA.
                 They bid and win in multiple countries across the EEA;
        (c)      Smaller or up and coming players have a demonstrated ability to expand
                 outside of their home countries;
        (d)      Customer requirements vary within a standard range of typical functions they
                 would like within their OCS;
        (e)      Variable shares across countries are not an indication of very different
                 competitive conditions in Member States, but a reflection of the increasing
                 trend for single national OCS systems leading to one or two suppliers having
                 solutions in place at any given time.
(817) The Notifying Party adds that the need to communicate with other signalling
        systems, notably interlockings, is not a barrier to entry at the national level and
        suppliers can and do, bid and win, in countries where they do not have interlocking
        installed:
        (a)      OCS-interlockings interfaces will be more and more standardized;
        (b)      Numerous examples show that suppliers can, and do, bid and win OCS
                 projects without being the incumbent interlocking or OCS supplier;
        (c)      Network operators can require standard OCS-interlockings interfaces or
                 requiring that access to the interface specification is given to the OCS
                 supplier;
        (d)      Network operators can also attract entry by organizing large projects
                 covering the entire country. Such projects attract new entry and competition
                 from all major EEA signalling players.
(818) In any case, the Notifying Party submits that the exact delineation of the relevant
        geographic market can be left open because the Transaction would not give rise to
        competitive concerns, regardless of the precise market definition adopted for OCS
        (i.e. EEA-wide or national).
740 See also the Notifying Party’s response to RFI 20, question 1.
                                                         167
 ---pagebreak--- (819) With respect to legacy ATP wayside and legacy OBU projects, the Notifying Party
        submits that the relevant markets are national in scope.
(820) From demand-side perspective, customers cannot easily switch to suppliers located
        elsewhere in the short term and at a negligible cost. In particular, national
        infrastructure managers do not purchase legacy systems used in another Member
        State, as they rely on different technology and are not interchangeable.
(821) From a supply-side perspective, a number of factors would suggest that markets
        should be defined at a national level. In particular:
        (a)     Legacy systems are only available from specific suppliers (or often only a
                single supplier), largely due to historical reasons. The signalling principles
                and technology underlying legacy systems vary between countries, so that
                one is not typically substitutable for the other.
        (b)     Suppliers offer different legacy systems across the EEA. Legacy systems
                show strong variations in between countries and are not interoperable and are
                built on proprietary technology.
        (c)     Suppliers cannot easily switch from one Member State to another in the short
                term without incurring significant additional cost or risk. A legacy solution
                used in one EEA Member State cannot be used in another EEA Member
                State since each state has its own rules and technical specifications.
        (B)       The Commission's decisional practice
(822) In Thales/Alcatel Divisions Transport et Systèmes, the Commission considered the
        geographic scope of a product market that comprised both mainline and urban
        signalling. The Commission noted that the market investigation suggested that the
        geographic scope of this unified market for urban and mainline signalling projects
        was at least EEA-wide but ultimately left the precise geographic market definition
        open.741
(823) In Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV, the Commission considered the geographic scope
        of a unified market for urban and mainline rail signalling projects. In that case, the
        parties argued that the relevant geographic market was national because, in particular
        in the UK, standards are set by the national safety and standards authority. The
        Commission noted that, on the other hand, the market investigation in a previous
        case (Thales/Alcatel) suggested the relevant geographic scope was European-wide
        and ultimately left the precise geographic market definition open.742
(824) In Siemens/Invensys Rail, the Commission considered the geographic scope of a
        united product market comprising urban and mainline signalling projects. The
        Commission noted that during the market investigation some participants considered
        that railway signalling projects are comparable in the EEA or even worldwide due to
        similar technologies, comparable safety requirements, progressing standardisation
        and exchange of information between customers. Other respondents however
741 Commission Decision in Case M.4337 – Thales/Alcatel Divisions Transport et Systèmes (2006), recitals
    21-24.
742 Commission decision in Case M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV (2007), recitals 22-23
                                                   168
 ---pagebreak---          indicated that customer preferences, national technical specifications, national safety
         standards and national authorisation processes were often mentioned in the market
         investigation as barriers to entry. The precise geographic market definition was
         ultimately left open.743
(825) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission considered that the relevant geographic markets
         for ETCS OBU projects, ETCS ATP wayside overlay projects (standalone) and
         ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects (bundle of ETCS ATP wayside and
         interlockings) were EEA-wide, noting in particular that the adoption of EU-wide
         authorisation procedures and standards, and in particular of ERTMS, was developing
         homogeneous conditions for competition between mainline signalling suppliers
         within the EEA. From a supply-side substitutability point of view, the same Baseline
         ETCS platforms developed by the respective suppliers were used in each Member
         State after adaptation. The use of standard platform/products in tenders across
         different EEA countries provided an indication that competitive conditions were
         similar across the EEA.
(826) Conversely, the Commission considered that the markets for interlockings and
         legacy OBU projects were national in scope. In particular, with regard to
         interlockings, the Commission noted that while some factors pointed to an EEA-
         wide geographic market for standalone interlocking projects, such as the use of
         similar platforms across countries, entrants bidding and winning and the presence of
         the same suppliers across a large number of EEA countries, other factors pointed to a
         national geographic scope, such as a more important presence of local suppliers in
         some EEA countries, the absence of EEA-wide standardisation with the exception of
         the EULYNX initiative and a higher share of national adaptation costs relative to
         project value. 744
         (C)        Results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment
         (C.i)      ETCS OBUs projects
(827) The vast majority of the participants to market investigation, both customers and
         competitors, confirmed that the market for ETCS OBUs projects should be
         considered EEA-wide in scope.745 ETCS projects respond to European standards and
         pan-European safety rules and can be considered to be EEA wide. ETCS OBU
         products are interoperable at the European level.746 Several participants also pointed
         to the possibility of a market larger than EEA, as the ETCS standard would have
         been adopted also by countries outside EEA (notably, Switzerland).747
(828) The Commission therefore considers that the relevant geographic market for ETCS
         OBU projects is at least EEA-wide. As for the inclusion of Switzerland, the question
         can be left open, as the competitive assessment would not change irrespective of the
         inclusion of Switzerland in the relevant geographic market.
743 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 24-27.
744  Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 721-834.
745 Q5, replies to question 14; Q6, replies to question 15; Q7, replies to question 11.
746 CAF’s response to Q7, question 11.1.
747 Siemens’, GCF Generale Costruzioni Ferroviarie’s and Stadler’s responses to Q5, question 14.1; Ferrovie
     dello Stato’s response to Q6, question 15.1; SBB’s response to Q7, question 11.1.
                                                         169
 ---pagebreak---        (C.ii)      Legacy OBU projects
(829) The results of the market investigation confirm the Notifying Party's view that the
       relevant geographic market for legacy OBUs systems is national in scope.
(830) The vast majority of the participants to market investigation, both customers and
       competitors, confirmed that the market for legacy OBUs projects should be
       considered national in scope748 It has been submitted that national markets would
       present strong barriers to entry: (i) adaptation costs to meet the country specific
       operating rules; (ii) sufficient volume to cover the cost of country adaptation; and
       (iii) homologation processes. Furthermore, the results of the market investigation
       show that legacy OBUs are not standardized, as they would differ from one country
       to another.749
(831) The Commission therefore considers that the relevant geographic market for legacy
       OBU projects is national.
       (C.iii)     Interlockings
(832) All respondents to the market investigation confirmed that the relevant geographic
       market for standalone interlockings is national in scope.750 Notably, a customer
       submitted that the market is national because of unique demand-side considerations,
       such as installed base, accreditation, the need for a significant local workforce and
       premises and different technical/engineering requirements.751 The market
       investigation shows that interlockings must be adapted to conform to national
       systems and signalling rules vary to some extent between countries. Authorization
       processes are also national. Moreover, different technology generations (mechanical,
       electro-mechanical, electrical, electronic and software / cloud based types) of
       interlocking would be rolled out and operate in parallel. The degree of digitalization
       within the different countries would be very different.752
(833) The Commission therefore considers that the relevant geographic market for
       standalone interlockings projects is national.
       (C.iv)      ETCS ATP wayside overlay projects (standalone)
(834) The majority of the participants to the market investigation, both customers and
       competitors, submitted that the market for ETCS ATP overlay projects is EEA-wide
       in scope.753 Respondents again referred to European standards and pan-European
       safety rules, noting that requirements for ETCS are specified within EU Regulation
       and the TSIs which apply across the EEA.754
(835) However, the results of the market investigation also highlighted factors pointing
       towards national markets, including the fact that suppliers of ETCS systems need to
       create an interface to the installed interlockings and homologate their ETCS systems.
748 Q5, replies to question 15; Q6, replies to question 16; Q7, replies to question 12.
749 Thales’ response to Q5, question 15.1.
750 Q5, replies to question 16; Q6, replies to question 17.
751 Network Rail’s response to Q6, question 17.1.
752 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 16.1.
753 Q5, replies to question 17; Q6, replies to question 18.
754 Ferrovial’s response to Q5, question 17.1.
                                                          170
 ---pagebreak---        Moreover, in the case of overlay projects where the infrastructure manager chooses
       to keep the existing interlockings, the ETCS supplier must develop a (national
       specific) interface between the existing interlockings and the ETCS system.755
(836) Nevertheless, on balance, on the basis of the observations in paragraph (827) above
       and in line with the results of the market investigation, the Commission considers
       that the relevant geographic markets for ETCS ATP wayside overlay projects is
       EEA-wide.
       (C.v)       ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects (bundle of ETCS ATP wayside
                   and interlockings)
(837) The majority of competitors and all customers taking part to the market investigation
       submitted that the relevant geographic market for ETCS ATP re-signalling projects
       (bundle of ETCS ATP wayside and interlockings) is EEA-wide in scope, for the
       same reasons mentioned with respect to ETCS ATP wayside overlay projects
       (standalone).756 It has been added that most suppliers can provide both interlocking
       and ETCS ATP wayside solutions across the EEA. 757 Similarly to ETCS ATP
       wayside overlay projects (standalone), a competitor submitted that certain factors
       point towards national markets, e.g. that the supplier has to homologate and
       customise their interlocking to comply with the applicable national standards which
       vary significantly between countries.758
(838) The Commission notes that the need to interoperate with existing interlockings in a
       given country’s mainline network is limited, as in re-signalling projects the
       interlockings are also replaced and hence only the interface between neighbouring
       interlocking needs to be developed. In this respect the Commission considers that
       any advantage to existing suppliers arising from being already supplying
       interlockings in a given country is surmountable and therefore not leading to national
       geographic markets. Adaptation costs that are country specific (e.g. interfacing with
       interlockings) can be surmountable, as they represent a relatively low share of the
       project's total value. For re-signalling projects, adaptation costs are even lower than
       for ETCS ATP wayside overlay projects or standalone interlockings projects if
       considered as a share of the overall value of the projects, as re-signalling projects are
       typically larger.759
(839)   Therefore, on balance, on the basis of the observations in paragraph (827) above and
       in line with the results of the market investigation, the Commission considers that
       the relevant geographic markets for ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects is
       EEA-wide.
       (C.vi)      Legacy ATP wayside projects
(840) The results of the market investigation confirm the Notifying Party's view that the
       relevant geographic market for legacy wayside projects is national in scope.
755 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 17.1.
756 Q5, replies to question 18; Q6, replies to question 19.
757 Progress Rail’s response to Q5, question 18.1.
758 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 18.1.
759 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 807 and 810.
                                                          171
 ---pagebreak--- (841) Most competitors and all customers responding to the market investigation submitted
       that the relevant geographic market for legacy ATP wayside projects is national in
       scope.760 It has been submitted that there is no standardization of legacy ATP
       systems, they differ from one country to another.761 Legacy wayside systems would
       be purchased only by infrastructure managers and other national customers within a
       relevant country and are supplied by different suppliers.762
(842)   The Commission therefore considers that the relevant geographic market for legacy
       wayside projects is national.
       (C.vii) OCS
(843) The results of the market investigation do not fully confirm the Notifying Party’s
       view that the market for OCS is EEA-wide.
(844) The results of the market investigation are contrasted. According to about half of
       competitors that contributed to the market investigation, the market for OCS is
       worldwide in scope, while the rest submitted that it is national in scope763:
       (a)       Competitors pointing to a worldwide dimension submitted that OCS systems
                 could be quite easily adapted to any customers' specifications and that
                 functionalities are generally similar in every country. 764 One competitor
                 stated that each nation may have their own technical requirements, but it still
                 considered that the market is worldwide as these systems are used across the
                 globe. 765
       (b)       Competitors in favour of a national dimension submitted that there would not
                 be any standard in human/machine interface: functionalities, operations and
                 information displayed are very different from one country to another, based
                 on the operator and infrastructure manager choices. Adaptation times and
                 costs are significant.766 Another competitor submitted that OCS systems
                 require adaptation to national specificities and different national customers
                 have different strategies for OCS roll-out.767
(845) Customers also hold similarly contrasted views, claiming that the market’s
       geographic scope could be worldwide768 or national. Most customers nevertheless
       point to a national dimension because OCSs need to be integrated with
       interlockings.769
(846) As a result, the market investigation remains inconclusive. From a supply-side
       perspective, although suppliers tend to use the same Baseline OCS systems in each
760 Q5, replies to question 19; Q6, replies to question 20.
761 Thales’ response to Q5, question 19.1.
762 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 19.1.
763 Q5, replies to question 20.
764 GCF Generale Costruzioni Ferroviarie’s response to Q5, question 20.1.
765 Ferrovial response to Q5, question 20.1.
766 Thales’ response to Q5, question 20.1.
767 Siemens’ response to Q5, question 20.1.
768 Ferrovie dello Stato’s response to Q6, question 21.1.
769 Trafikverket’s response to Q6, question 21.1.
                                                          172
 ---pagebreak---          Member State, this common Baseline requires a specific adaptation, also including
         in connection with interlockings, a product which relevant geographic market is
         national in scope.
(847) Furthermore, market share data for OCS tenders across the EEA reveals a certain
         number of competitors active in different Member States, but whose respective
         market shares differ substantially across countries, suggesting the possibility of
         different competitive conditions and of national specificities. Although these
         differences could depend on the fact that few tenders are organized for OCS in each
         countries, as submitted by the Notifying Party, at this stage it cannot be excluded
         that other factors, linked to specificities in each single country, determine this
         differentiation in the competitive conditions.
(848) Finally, the ongoing standardization initiative (see above at paragraph (815)(d)) is
         still at an early stage and could not lead to substantial results in the short/medium
         term.
(849) With respect to a possible worldwide dimension, the Commission does not consider
         that a worldwide market for OCS can be granted, as the competition conditions
         differ substantially in different continents and outside of the EEA a series of
         different competitors are active, at local and international level.
(850) In sum and in light of the results of the market investigation, while several relevant
         factors point to an EEA-wide geographic market for OCS, other elements point to a
         national geographic scope. The Commission therefore considers that at this stage of
         the investigation it is not possible to definitively conclude on the exact geographic
         market definition and will assess the effects of the Transaction in the market for
         OCS at both EEA-wide and national level.
           7.2.2.2. Mainline signalling products
         (A)       The Notifying Party’s views
(851) The Notifying Party submits that data should be provided on a national basis due to
         the country-specific product characteristics, as well as authorization and
         homologation processes which take place at national level.770
(852) Regarding specifically Euro-balises the Notifying Party submits that the following
         considerations plead in favour of an EEA-wide market for ETCS products (including
         Euro-balises): (i) the products have to comply with the ERTMS standardization and
         as such, they are authorized at the EU level and can be sold to customers across the
         EEA, without any need for prior authorisation or homologation at national level; and
         (ii) the same ETCS products developed by a signalling supplier are used in each
         Member State.771
         (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(853) In Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty, the Commission concluded that, whereas importation
         of railway signalling products, in particular point machines, is possible and
770 Form CO, Chapter C.4.
771 Replies to RFIs 18 and 36.
                                                    173
 ---pagebreak---         apparently occurs to a limited extent, in the heavy rail segment the market for these
        machines appears to be national. However, the precise geographic market definition
        was left open.772
(854) In Siemens/Invensys Rail, the Commission could not exclude that the geographic
        scope of the market for railway signalling products should be considered national,
        given that obtaining national authorisation for the railway signalling products is not
        easy since the authorisation processes are different in different Member States and
        can be time consuming. The Commission left the exact geographic market definition
        open.773
(855) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission considered the market for interlocking
        equipment as national in scope, in particular because of the country-specific
        authorisation/homologation processes and the fact that the interlocking equipment is
        country-specific involving non-negligible investments and costs.774
        (C)       The results of the market investigation and the Commission’s assessment
(856) The responses to the market investigation in relation to the relevant geographic
        scope of the supply of mainline signalling products were mixed.
(857) The majority of the customers consider that the appropriate market definition is
        national, while some of the customers consider the scope of the market to be EEA-
        wide or even worldwide.775 The majority of the competitors consider that the market
        for signalling products is worldwide.776
(858) For the purposes of the present decision, the Commission will carry out its
        competitive assessment at the narrowest national level, with the exception of Euro-
        balises.
(859) Regarding Euro-balises specifically, the Commission considers that the following
        factors point to an EEA-wide scope of the relevant market for these products:
        (a)      A Euro-balise is an ERTMS component complying with the ETCS standard;
                 and, as a result, the same reasons pointing to an EEA-wide market for ETCS
                 OBU and ETCS wayside projects (i.e. the adoption of EU-wide authorisation
                 procedures and standards, resulting in homogeneous conditions for
                 competition between mainline signalling suppliers within the EEA) are
                 equally applicable;
        (b)      A Euro-balise can be used in various European countries on the basis of the
                 same specification;
        (c)      Euro-balises manufactured in one EEA country are being sold in other EEA
                 countries.
772 Commission Decision in Case M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV (2007), recitals 24-26.
773 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 28-30.
774 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 1209.
775 Q6, question 23.
776 Q5, question 22.
                                                     174
 ---pagebreak--- (860) A competitor also notes in this respect that ‘Eurobalises are products fulfilling
        European standard requirements and are compliant and compatible with all ERTMS
        subsystems from all the suppliers’;777 similarly another competitor highlights that a
        Euro-balise ‘is a standard product belonging to a system architecture of a European
        wide standard ETCS’ and ‘is used in various European countries on the basis of the
        same specification’.778
(861) For the purposes of the present decision, the Commission therefore considers that the
        geographic scope of the market for Euro-balises is EEA-wide.
8.      COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT – MAINLINE SIGNALLING
8.1.      Framework for the competitive assessment
(862) As regards the assessment of horizontal overlaps, reference is made to paragraphs
        (269) to (273).
(863) As regards the assessment of vertical relationships, the Commission Non-Horizontal
        Merger Guidelines distinguish between two main ways in which mergers between
        undertakings active on vertically related relevant markets may significantly impede
        effective competition, namely through input or customer foreclosure. Input
        foreclosure occurs where the merger is likely to raise the costs of downstream
        competitors by restricting their access to an important input. Customer foreclosure
        occurs where the merger is likely to foreclose upstream competitors by restricting
        their access to a sufficient customer base.
(864) According to paragraph 25 of the Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, ‘The
        Commission is unlikely to find concern in non-horizontal mergers, be it of a
        coordinated or of a non-coordinated nature, where the market share post-merger of
        the new entity in each of the markets concerned is below 30% and the post-merger
        HHI is below 2 000’.
8.2.      Mainline signalling projects
8.2.1. Horizontal unilateral effects
(865) The Parties are both active in the EEA with offerings covering a range of mainline
        signalling projects.
(866)    Alstom’s mainline signalling offering includes:
        (a)     ETCS OBU: Alstom is active in the ATP ETCS OBU segment with its Atlas
                ETCS on-board solutions.
        (b)     ETCS wayside: Alstom is active in the ATP ETCS wayside segment with its
                Atlas trackside range solutions, including Atlas 100, 200, 400, and 500.
777 Reply to RFI 29.
778 Reply to RFI 28.
                                                  175
 ---pagebreak---         (c)       Interlockings: Alstom portfolio includes the Smartlock 400, VPI, and
                  ElectrologiX.
        (d)       OCS: Alstom is active in OCS through ICONIS Mainline, RailEdge, and
                  SSA.
        (e)       Legacy OBUs: Alstom supplies on-board equipment for Legacy ATP
                  systems in Belgium (TBL / TBL1+ / ATBL), France (KVB Autonom/STM),
                  Netherlands (ATB / ATBL-NL), Italy (SSC / SCMT), and the UK (TASS and
                  TBL/GWML [Confidential information on Alstom’s suppy arrangements]).
                  Alstom is also developing [Information on Alstom’s R&D activities].
        (f)       Legacy wayside: Alstom supplies wayside equipment for legacy ATP
                  systems in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Italy, and the UK.
(867) Bombardier’s mainline signalling offering includes:
        (a)       ETCS OBU: For ETCS OBU systems, Bombardier offers one major product
                  within the EEA: EBI CAB 2000.
        (b)       ETCS wayside: Bombardier is active through its Interflo solutions. In
                  particular, Bombardier offers three major products within the EEA:
                  INTERFLO 250 (ETCS Level 1), 450 (ETCS Level 2), and 550 (ERTMS
                  Regional/High Density).
        (c)       Interlockings: Bombardier offers the EBI LOCK R4 950, a computer-based
                  interlockings system in the EEA.
        (d)       OCS: Bombardier is active in OCS through its EBISCREEN platform.
        (e)       Legacy wayside: Bombardier offers wayside equipment for Legacy ATP
                  wayside systems in Bulgaria (ATC), Portugal (ATC/Convel), France
                  (ATC/KVB - licensing of balise technology to Alstom for delivery for a
                  national rollout), Sweden and Norway (ATC2), Finland and Spain (EBI Link
                  900), and Italy (SCMT).
        (f)       Legacy OBU: Bombardier has standalone legacy systems (no STMs) in
                  Bulgaria, Portugal, and Finland. Bombardier developed the following STMs
                  in Europe: PZB/LZB, LZB/ES, ATB, SHP, TBL1+, and ATC-2, currently
                  offered in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Belgium (in
                  partnership), and Sweden.
(868) According to the market data provided by the Notifying Party, the Transaction gives
        rise to the following horizontally affected markets in the mainline signalling projects
        sector:779
779 The parties’ overlaps in the remaining mainline signalling projects markets do not give rise to horizontally
    affected markets. With particular reference to legacy OBUs projects, there are only two countries where
    both Parties’ products are homologated, Belgium and Netherlands (homologation overlap). However, the
    Transaction will not give rise to any actual (order intake share) overlap. This is because in Belgium in the
    2010-2019 period Alstom is the sole supplier to have won legacy OBU projects and Bombardier did not
    bid in the Netherlands in the last ten years. As most legacy OBUs are sold as products, they will be
                                                           176
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---         8.2.1.1. ETCS OBUs
      (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(872) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction will not give rise to competition
      concerns in the market for ETCS OBUs projects in the EEA, for the following
      reasons:
      (a)     The Transaction will not eliminate a significant player in the EEA. In
              Siemens/Alstom the Commission acknowledged that Bombardier is a limited
              constraint on the market, being at considerable distance from the market
              leaders (Siemens and Alstom) in terms of bidding frequency and facing
              technical difficulties.
      (b)     Approximately […]% of Bombardier’s sales are internal, dedicated to its own
              new rolling stock and generally non-contestable. Bombardier’s primary focus
              is to supply its own internal requirements, while external sales and
              retrofitting non-Bombardier rolling stock is only a subsidiary activity. As a
              result, Bombardier’s market share of external supplies of ETCS OBUs are
              limited.
      (c)     Bombardier is essentially a small local player with most of its external sales
              concentrated in Sweden, a country where it has a historical presence and
              where it does not compete head-to-head with Alstom. Moreover, most of
              Bombardier’s sales in Sweden are from non-contestable tenders. Sweden,
              Poland and Norway are the only countries in which Bombardier was
              successful in equipping new non-Bombardier rolling stock with its own
              OBUs and even there, Bombardier’s wins represent a very small proportion
              of contestable projects.
      (d)     Absent the Transaction, there is no reason to believe that Bombardier could
              have become an effective constraint on Alstom throughout the EEA.
              Bombardier’s ETCS OBUs have been plagued by technical difficulties, as
              noted by the Commission in the Siemens/Alstom decision. Bombardier’s
              share of Baseline 3 projects (the future of ETCS OBUs) is small and again,
              largely concentrated in Sweden.
      (e)     The merged entity will continue to face strong ETCS OBU rivals in the EEA:
              Siemens, Hitachi, CAF, Thales, Stadler and Mermec. Moreover, the threat of
              new entry/expansion in the ETCS OBUs segment by Asian players will
              continue to exist.
      (B)       The Commission’s assessment
(873) Table 29 below provide an overview of the Parties’ and their main competitors’
      market shares in the market for ETCS OBUs projects in the EEA, including internal
      sales.
                                               178
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (876) Post-Transaction, considering external (merchant) sales only, the merged entity
        would be the market leader, with a market share between [50-60] and [60-70]%.
        However, the market share increment resulting from the Transaction would be
        limited, at about [5-10]%. Again, the main competitor would be Siemens, with a
        market share between [30-40]% and [40-50]%. Other minor suppliers will remain
        active in the market.
(877)    The Notifying Party has provided market data also for the geographic market
        including EEA and Switzerland:
        (a)     Including internal sales, in the period 2010-2019 Alstom has a market share
                of [30-40]% and Bombardier of [10-20]% (combined [40-50]%). The main
                competitors are Siemens ([40-50]%), Hitachi ([0-5]%), CAF ([0-5]%),
                Mermec ([0-5]%) and Thales ([0-5]%);
        (b)     Excluding internal sales, in the period 2010-2019 Alstom has a market share
                of [50-60]% and Bombardier of [0-5]% (combined [50-60]%). The other
                competitors are Siemens ([30-40]%), Hitachi ([0-5]%), Mermec ([0-5]%)%
                and Thales ([0-5]%).
(878) Those market data show that the competitive situation does not change substantially
        in case Switzerland is included in the relevant geographic market. For simplicity, in
        the following analysis the Commission will refer to the EEA, but all conclusions are
        to be referred also to a hypothetical geographic market including EEA and
        Switzerland.
(879) The market data show that Alstom is the clear market leader and that this position
        will be reinforced by the Transaction. However, the data also confirms that
        Bombardier is primarily focused on supplies to its own rolling stock and has a
        limited role in sales to third parties. In this respect its position is comparable to those
        of other minor players, in particular Hitachi.
(880) The result of the market investigation has been mixed with respect to the impact of
        the Transaction on the market for ETCS OBUs projects in the EEA.
(881) Several competitors submitted that the Transaction would create competition
        concerns in an EEA-wide market for ETCS OBUs projects by significantly
        enhancing Alstom’s market leading position by adding Bombardier’s ETCS OBU
        business:
        (a)     Siemens submitted that Bombardier is the most frequent bidder and winner
                after Alstom and Siemens. Bombardier is also the second most frequent
                bidder and winner in contestable bids where Siemens or Alstom participated
                (after Alstom and Siemens, respectively). Bombardier won seven projects in
                2018 and 2019, including several projects for Baseline 3 ETCS OBUs.
                However, Siemens’ estimation confirmed that about […]% of Bombardier
                sales for ETCS OBUs are installed on Bombardier’s rolling stock (internal
                sales).781
781 Siemens’ submission of 21 April 2020, pages 79-80. See also Siemens’ response to Q5, question 60.1.
                                                       180
 ---pagebreak---          (b)      Stadler submitted that the Transaction would lead to increased market
                  concentration and would pose a significant threat to competition in the
                  emerging ETCS OBU markets. It will decrease the number of suppliers
                  which have successfully completed the ETCS homologation process, leaving
                  only three players that can offer homologated ETCS OBUs in a significant
                  number of European countries. Given the market shares of the competing
                  players, only Siemens might be able to exert any meaningful competitive
                  constraint on the Combined Entity regarding ETCS OBUs, factually leading
                  to a duopoly. In addition, the Parties may, based on their dominant market
                  position, exert disproportionate influence in the UNISIG to achieve
                  anticompetitive standard setting.782
         (c)      Hitachi submitted that the transaction will grant the merged entity significant
                  market power in the ETCS-OBU market at EEA and national level, in
                  particular in Northern Europe. At EEA-level, the merged entity would benefit
                  from a combination of dominant and monopolistic positions it could leverage
                  by optimizing its pricing for exclusionary and entry-deterring purposes.783
(882) Conversely, other participants, both competitors and customers, submitted that the
         Transaction would not have negative effects in this market, in particular considering
         the limited role of Bombardier and its recent technical and commercial difficulties.
         Several competitors acknowledged that Bombardier’s position has been decreasing
         as, in recent years, it has faced competition not just from the market leaders (Alstom
         and Siemens) but also from smaller competitors that are increasingly considered
         equals (Hitachi, Thales, CAF, Stadler/Mermec).784 As a result, Bombardier has lost
         contracts in countries in which it held historical positions (Sweden). Finally,
         Bombardier appears to be lagging against its competitors [Confidential information
         on Bombardier’s R&D activities]. On balance, competitors submit that, even if the
         Transaction will reinforce the merged entity’s market presence, this would not
         significantly alter competition on the OBU market, given the Bombardier’s
         structural lack of competitiveness and given its focus on captive sales.785
(883) These views are confirmed by several customers, for example:
         (a)      DSB - Danske Statsbaner, the Danish railway operator, submitted that it does
                  not consider Bombardier a strong supplier of ETCS OBUs as they have less
                  references and face certain issues with their deliveries (for example in
                  Germany). Siemens and Alstom are currently considered the most important
                  suppliers. Other players are emerging as credible suppliers in the market,
                  such as CAF that has already developed its own ETCS OBUs and Stadler that
782 Stadler’s submission of 4 May 2020, pages 11-12. See also Stadler’s response to Q5, question 61.1 and
    Minutes of the call of 24 March 2020.
783 Hitachi’s response to Q5, question 61.1. See also Hitachi’s submission of 2 July 2020.
784 The increasing role of competitors other than Siemens is confirmed by the Notifying Party, that refers to
    the recent progresses in this market by CAF (active in UK, Spain, and the Netherlands), Thales (that won
    a first project in 2016), and Stadler/Mermec (that in 2019 was already executing seven projects in six
    European countries) (Form CO, Chapter C.1.a, paragraphs 93-95).
785 Responses to Q5, question 26.3 and 63.1.
                                                         181
 ---pagebreak---                   has started developing OBUs. DSB thus considers that a competitive market
                  for ETCS OBUs will remain available after the Transaction.786
         (b)      The Belgian railway operator, SNCB, submitted that the competition with
                  other existing suppliers is sufficient to maintain a competitive market for the
                  time being.787
         (c)      NS Reizigers, the Dutch railway operator, submitted that Bombardier is
                  already a minor player in the market and that its place could be taken by
                  other suppliers.788
         (d)      Similarly, Deutsche Bahn, the German railway operator, submitted that in
                  their opinion the Transaction will not have a material impact on the OBU
                  markets.789
(884) In general, most OBUs customers submitted that the Transaction would not have
         negative impacts on their activity in the procurement of OBUs.790
(885) The more limited role currently played by Bombardier in the ETCS OBUs projects
         market and the technical difficulties it is facing are confirmed by its limited market
         shares in the latest baseline of ETCS OBUs (baseline 3)791, namely [5-10]% at EEA
         level. Taking into account only contestable sales, its market share drops at [0-5]%.
         Moreover, all of Bombardier’s external sales for new rolling stock are concentrated
         in Sweden. Excluding Sweden, Bombardier’s external sales lead to a market share of
         less than [0-5]%, regardless of the metric (contestable vs. non-contestable, all sales
         vs. external sale only).792
(886) Siemens also acknowledges that Bombardier is behind its main competitors in the
         latest specification of ETCS OBUs, as Bombardier currently does not offer a
         Baseline 3 Release 2 ETCS OBU and does not yet have a Baseline 3 ETCS OBU in
         operation, unlike other providers such as Alstom or Siemens. In addition, some
         customers have a preference for Siemens’ or Alstom’s ETCS OBUs. Moreover,
         Bombardier would not be able supply to the Baseline 3 ETCS OBU with an ATO
         (Automated Train Operation) functionality.793
(887) Banedanmark confirmed that, in terms of development, Alstom and Siemens are
         close to the same maturity, while Bombardier is less advanced in the delivery of
         Baseline 3 OBUs.794 Railpool also submitted that Bombardier is struggling with
         keeping the system constantly upgraded.795
786  DSB, minutes of the call of 24 April 2020.
787  SNCB’s response to Q7, question 29.1.
788 NS Reizigers’ response to Q7, question 63.1.
789 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q7, question 63.1.
790 Q7, replies to question 62.
791 For Baselines see paragraph (731).
792 Notifying Party’s response to RFI 20, 26 June 2020, question 12, tables 2 and 3.
793 Siemens’submission of 21 April 2020, page 87.
794 Banedanmark response to Q7, question 18.1.1.
795 Railpool’s response to Q7, question 18.2.1.
                                                         182
 ---pagebreak--- (888) In terms of closeness of competition, most respondents to the market investigation
        submitted that Siemens is Alstom’s closest competitor, as the two companies are
        perceived as the clear market leaders. In general, at EEA level, in terms of product
        offering and technical capabilities Alstom, Siemens, Thales, Hitachi and Bombardier
        are considered all close competitors, as they all have similar technical capabilities
        and offer the full range of signalling subsystems and can participate on their own in
        tenders for integrated signalling projects.796
(889) Participation and win/loss analysis confirm that in ETCS OBUs projects Bombardier
        is not Alstom’s closest competitor and that in any case other significant suppliers are
        active in the market:
        (a)       During the 2010–2019 period, a total of […] contestable ETCS OBU tenders
                  took place in the EEA and the Parties both bid on only […] of these projects
                  ([10-20]%). The Parties did not overlap in about [80-90]% of contested OBU
                  projects in the EEA.
        (b)       Other players competed with Alstom more frequently than or as frequently as
                  Bombardier: of the […] contestable projects on which Alstom bid,
                  Bombardier was present in only […], compared to […] for Siemens, and […]
                  for Hitachi. Thales was also present in […] of the contestable projects on
                  which Alstom bid.
        (c)       In all tenders in which both Parties participated, at least […] other rivals were
                  present. In the […] instances in which Alstom did face Bombardier in
                  contestable ETCS OBU tenders, at least […] other rivals (apart from the
                  Parties) were also present.797
(890) The finding that Bombardier exercises a limited competitive constraint in the ETCS
        OBU projects market in the EEA, and the issues of its offering, is consistent with the
        conclusion reached in Siemens/Alstom, where it was observed that Siemens and
        Alstom were the closest competitors and that Bombardier could not be considered a
        strong competitor of Siemens and Alstom, due to the lack of competitiveness of
        Bombardier's platform and its low market share and bidding activity.798
(891) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction does not give
        rise to serious doubts with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a
        result of possible horizontal non-coordinated effects, either through the creation or
        strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective
        competition, in the market for ETCS OBUs projects in the EEA.
          8.2.1.2. ETCS Wayside
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s view
(892) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction would not give rise to competition
        concerns in ETCS wayside projects. Since, according to the Notifying Party, the
        relevant market consists in a single product market for ETCS wayside (including
796 Q5, replies to questions 24-27: Q7, replies to question 18.
797 Form CO, chapter C.1.a, paragraph 89.
798 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom (2019), recitals 864 and 870.
                                                          183
 ---pagebreak---       both overlay and re-signalling projects), the Notifying Party provides a single
      assessment for the whole ETCS wayside sector. The Notifying Party also provided
      market data for ETCS wayside (overall) and for overlay and re-signalling separately.
(893) According to the Notifying Party, the Transaction would only result in a modest
      combined share in the EEA, with a relatively small market share increment
      attributable to Bombardier. These market shares are even lower at the EEA level,
      including Switzerland. Post-Transaction, important competitors will hold significant
      market shares and continue to exert a significant competitive constraint.
(894) With regard to overlay projects, the Notifying Party submits that the Parties’ market
      shares also overstate the Parties’ position, as Bombardier’s market share in ETCS
      overlay largely results from projects in Poland, for which Alstom did not compete.
      The Notifying Party argues that the Transaction is likely, if anything, to increase
      competition, as at present, Siemens and Thales are ahead of the other players in the
      market and the merged entity is more likely to be an effective competitor against
      these two large wayside players, notably in a series of Member States.
(895) Moreover, the Notifying Party submits that the overlay sub-segment is small, with
      infrequent tenders, leading to significant share distortions resulting from winning a
      small number of projects. A focus on overlay projects would not reflect likely future
      competitive dynamics in ETCS wayside signalling, as customers are expected to
      increasingly undertake re-signalling projects in future.
(896) Moreover, the Notifying Party considers that the market data suggests that Thales,
      Siemens, and Hitachi are closer competitors to Alstom than Bombardier. In
      particular, the Parties’ geographic footprint within EEA largely differs: at national
      level, the Parties’ activities, in terms of order intake, only overlap in […] Member
      States. In Siemens/Alstom, the results of the market investigation also supported the
      view that Siemens and Alstom, together with Thales, were the three main signalling
      players. The Notifying Party explains that this conclusion is supported by
      participation and win/loss analysis, which demonstrate that Alstom and Bombardier
      have rarely faced or lost to each other in ATP wayside tenders, including for ATP
      wayside overlay projects.
(897) Finally, the Notifying Party notes that the merged entity will continue to face strong
      ETCS wayside players in the EEA.
      (B)       The Commission’s assessment
      (B.i)     ETCS wayside (overlay)
(898) Table 31 below provides an overview of the Parties’ and their main competitors’
      market shares in the market for ETCS wayside overlay projects in the EEA.
                                                 184
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---         Siemens, Alstom, Hitachi, Thales and Bombardier, who have similar product
        offerings and technical capabilities.803 Only one customer out of four has ranked
        Bombardier as the best alternative to Alstom, in terms of products, product ranges,
        competitiveness, quality, and innovation. 804
(909) Tender participation and win/loss analysis confirm that, in ETCS wayside tenders,
        the interaction between the Parties is limited, as the Parties did not compete against
        each other in over [70-80]% of the projects (including both overlay and re-
        signalling): the Parties faced each other in only […] projects out of […] and
        participated jointly in a consortium in further […] projects in the period 2010-
        2019.805
(910) It can be added that the majority of the participants to the market investigation
        submitted that the Transaction would not have any negative impact on the mainline
        signalling markets and those who submitted that the Transaction would have
        negative impact either on their activity or on the mainline signalling markets referred
        to signalling markets other than the market for ETCS wayside re-signalling projects
        in the EEA.806
(911) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction does not give
        rise to serious doubts with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a
        result of possible horizontal effects, either through the creation or strengthening of a
        dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective competition, in the
        market for ETCS wayside re-signalling projects in the EEA.
          8.2.1.3. Interlockings
        (A)        Italy
        (A.i)      The Notifying Party’s view
(912) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction would not have any negative
        effects in the Italian market for interlockings, for several reasons: (i) the merged
        entity will have a moderate market share; (ii) Bombardier is a marginal player in
        Italy, with a modest market share; (iii) the merged entity will continue to face several
        strong competitors, as the Italian market is very competitive with many homologated
        suppliers; (iv) Hitachi will remain the market leader, with a significant market share
        and the merged entity will also continue to face the competition from several other
803 Q5, replies to questions 26.1 and 26.2; Q6, replies to questions 26.1 and 26.2.
804 Q5, replies to questions 26.1 and 26.2; Q6, replies to questions 26.1 and 26.2.
805 Form CO, Chapter C.1.b, paragraph 40 and figure 3.
806 Q5, replies to questions 60 to 62; Q6, replies to questions 53 to 56. One competitor submitted that the
    Transaction will turn a relatively competitive market into a more concentrated one as, collectively, the
    market leading competitors – the merged entity, Siemens, and Thales – would hold over 90% of the
    market, with market shares symmetrically distributed across these three competitors. Moreover, the
    merged entity will achieve significant market shares in certain countries, in particular in Sweden and in
    the Scandinavian region (Hitachi’s submission of 2 July 2020, pages 20-21). The Commission notes that,
    besides the three main players, at least two other competitors will continue to be active in the EEA
    market and to take part in tenders for ETCS wayside re-signalling projects. Moreover, the relevant
    market has an EEA-wide dimension, in accordance with the results of the market investigation.
    Therefore, any possible market share at national level is not per se indicative of particular market power.
    Finally, no local wayside signalling customer has expressed any particular concern in this respect.
                                                          187
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (916) Tender participation and win/loss analysis confirm that, in interlockings tenders in
        Italy, Hitachi is Alstom’s closest competitor: during the 2010–2019 period, a total of
        […] contestable tenders for standalone interlockings projects took place in Italy and
        the Parties both bid on […] of these projects (less than [40-50]%). Conversely,
        Hitachi competed with Alstom more frequently than with Bombardier: of the […]
        contestable projects on which Alstom bid, Hitachi was present in […], compared to
        […] for Bombardier.808
(917) Data on participation in interlockings tenders in Italy also confirm that other
        competitors consistently bid and even win interlocking projects. In the […]
        contestable tenders in years 2010-2015, Hitachi bid in […] of them (winning […]),
        Progress Rail bid in […] of them (winning […]), Sirti bid in […] of them (winning
        […]), Eredi Mercuri bid in […] of them (winning […]). In the same period
        Bombardier bid in […] tenders (winning […]). In […] tenders there were three or
        more competitors.809
(918) [One Customer] expressed some general concerns with respect to wayside signalling
        in Italy, including interlockings, explaining that it has a series of ongoing projects
        with both Alstom and Bombardier (with different technologies), referring to the
        possibility that one of the major technologies in use could disappear and suggesting
        the adoption of safeguards aiming to protect the investments already realized. In
        light of this, it submits that it has concerns that the Transaction would lead to a
        considerable reduction of competition for wayside systems and technologies.810 In
        this respect, the Commission notes that several competitors will remain active in
        Italy after the Transaction, in particular in the interlockings market, although
        arguably using different technologies.
(919) As for the technologies currently in use, the market investigation provided no
        evidence that the Transaction’s competitive effects may give the Parties an incentive
        to discontinue wayside signalling technologies supplied to FSI. Moreover, the
        Commission takes note of [Information on the Parties’ future business strategy].811
(920) Finally, no other participant to the market investigation – including competitors of
        the Parties in Italy – submitted that the Transaction would have any negative impact
        on their activity or in the market for interlockings in Italy.812
(921) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction does not give
        rise to serious doubts with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a
        result of possible horizontal non-coordinated effects, either through the creation or
        strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective
        competition, in the market for interlockings in Italy.
808 Form CO, chapter C.1.b, Table 5, figures 5 and 6.
809 Elaboration on Form CO, chapter C.1.b, Table 5.
810 Ferrovie dello Stato’s response to Q6, question 56 and Minutes of the call of 3 April 2020.
811 [Document containing information on the Parties’ future business strategy].
812 Q5, replies to questions 60 to 62; Q6, replies to questions 53 to 56.
                                                           189
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (926) The limited role of Bombardier in this market is confirmed by the fact that during
       2010-2019 it won only […] minor projects, one of which was non-contestable.813
       The Commission also notes that in the 2010-2019 period orders for interlockings in
       the Netherlands have been limited (for a total value of about […] Euro) and this lack
       of demand explains how Bombardier has a [5-10]% market share with just […]
       minor orders.
(927) Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Dutch infrastructure manager (ProRail)
       launched a tender procedure for wayside ERTMS equipment in April 2020. A
       negotiated procedure will follow and the intention is to have a signed contract by the
       end of 2021. The objective of this tender is to have one supplier for the main
       components of the wayside ERTMS system (including interlockings), for a period up
       to 12 years depending on planning and possible extensions. During this period,
       ProRail will source these systems for ERTMS from this single supplier. ProRail has
       confirmed that Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens and Hima supply this technology and
       that incumbent suppliers can have a certain advantage in the process.814 In this
       respect the Commission notes that a tender procedure for ETCS re-signalling
       projects (that includes interlockings) could also attract competition from other large
       players active in the EEA (see previous table 32) and therefore competitive
       conditions in the Netherlands are in the process of being significantly contested.
(928) Finally, no respondent to the market investigation – including competitors of the
       Parties in the Netherlands – submitted that the Transaction would have any negative
       impact on their activity in the Netherlands or in the market for interlockings in the
       Netherlands.815
(929) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction does not give
       rise to serious doubts with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a
       result of possible horizontal non-coordinated effects, either through the creation or
       strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective
       competition, in the market for interlockings in the Netherlands.
       (C)         Spain
       (C.i)       The Notifying Party’s view
(930) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction would not have any negative
       effects in the Spanish market for interlockings, for the following reasons: (i) the
       merged entity will have a moderate share with a small increment brought by Alstom;
       (ii) Alstom is a small player in Spain. Moreover, a number of Bombardier’s wins in
       Spain were in any event in consortia with other players, and those consortia partners
       would have the know-how to bid independently in the future; (iii) The merged entity
       will continue to face several strong competitors, as the Spanish market is
       competitive, with six active interlockings suppliers; (iv) bidding data confirms that
       the Parties are not particularly close competitors and that Siemens competes with
       Alstom more frequently than Bombardier.
813 Form CO, chapter C.1.b, paragraph 63.
814 Reply to RFI 19, 1 July 2020.
815 Q5, replies to questions 60 to 62; Q6, replies to questions 53 to 56.
                                                          191
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (936) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction does not give
        rise to serious doubts with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a
        result of possible horizontal non-coordinated effects, either through the creation or
        strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective
        competition, in the market for interlockings in Spain.
          8.2.1.4. OCS
(937) Preliminarily, the Commission notes that the EEA-wide market for OCS is not
        horizontally affected, as the Parties have a [10-20]% combined market share at that
        level (Alstom [5-10]%; Bombardier [0-5]% (2010-2019, share order intake)). The
        Parties hold a similar market share ([10-20]%) in the period 2015-2019.
(938) At the national level, the Transaction leads to affected OCS markets in Denmark,
        Italy and Sweden.
        (A)        Denmark
        (A.i)      The Notifying Party’s view
(939) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction would not give rise to any
        competition concerns in OCS projects in Denmark.
(940) In this respect, the Notifying Party argues that the Parties’ very high combined
        market share for 2010-2019 period would be an overstatement of the Parties’ actual
        market power and it should be considered alongside a number of other factors: (i)
        there is no overlap between the Parties in the last five years, and the overlap only
        concerns […] projects over the last ten years, for which at least […] other major
        players bid; (ii) Alstom’s sales resulted from a follow-on order from an ETCS re-
        signalling project (undertaken by both Thales and Alstom) which included an OCS
        part that has not been taken into account in the market share calculation. When
        including the OCS part of this ETCS re-signalling project, the combined share of the
        Parties would drop significantly (as also Thales’ share should be considered), with a
        minimal increment due to the Transaction; (iii) the Parties’ offerings are highly
        differentiated. According to the Notifying Party, [Confidential explanation on why
        the Parties’ respective solutions do not closely compete].817
        (A.ii)     The Commission’s assessment
(941) Table 36 below provide an overview of the Parties’ market shares in the market for
        OCS in Denmark.
817 See the Notifying Party’s reply to RFI 20, 26 June 2020, question 2.
                                                         193
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (947) The results of the market investigation confirm the absence of competitive concerns.
       Notably, Banedanmark, the Danish infrastructure manager, confirmed that the offers
       received by Alstom and Bombardier were technically on a different level (in
       particular, that the Bombardier system platform was less advanced). Moreover,
       Siemens, Thales and Cactus were all identified as credible bidders for a full scope
       OCS solution. In the opinion of Banedanmark, post-Transaction the OCS market in
       Denmark would not be substantially changed and separate tenders for OCS would be
       expected to face unchanged competition.819
(948) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction does not give
       rise to serious doubts with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a
       result of possible horizontal non-coordinated effects, either through the creation of
       strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective
       competition, in the market for OCS in Denmark.
       (B)       Italy
       (B.i)     The Notifying Party’s view
(949) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction would not give rise to any
       competition concerns in OCS projects in Italy.
(950) In this respect, the Notifying Party argues that the Parties’ very high combined
       market share for 2010-2019 period are an overstatement of the Parties’ actual market
       power. The Notifying Party further argues that: (i) when considering contestable
       projects, the Parties market shares drop significantly in Italy and there is no overlap
       between the Parties in the last five years; (ii) Bombardier’s market share in Italy
       reflect only […] projects, the largest of which being non contestable; (iii) other
       major players regularly bid and win contracts in Italy; (iv) the Parties’ offerings is
       highly differentiated.
       (B.ii)    The Commission’s assessment
(951) Table 37 below provide an overview of the Parties’ market shares in the market for
       OCS in Italy.
819 Banedanmark, submission of 7 July 2020.
                                                195
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (963) in the only […] contestable projects tendered in Sweden in 2010-2019, the Parties’
        faced each other only in […] of them for a standalone OCS project, […], and in that
        occasion two other bidders were present (Siemens and Hitachi). The other […]
        contestable tenders were awarded to Cactus and the Parties did not face each other.
        Bombardier has not won any single contestable tender in the last ten years.
(964) Second, the Parties’ offerings in OCS are differentiated, as already explained above
        in paragraph (944). With specific reference to Sweden, [Confidential information on
        Bombardier’s OCS offering and business strategy].824
(965) The result of the market investigation has confirmed the absence of competitive
        concerns. Notably Trafikverket, the Swedish Transport Administration, submitted
        that in general they purchase OCS, interlockings and train protection systems within
        the same frame contract. In general, Trafikverket has identified a series of credible
        bidders and considers that post-Transaction, the remaining OCS suppliers would
        suffice to ensure that future tenders have a competitive outcome, particularly after
        the EULINX standard would be introduced.825
(966) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction does not give
        rise to serious doubts with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a
        result of possible horizontal non-coordinated effects, either through the creation of
        strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise significantly impeding effective
        competition, in the market for OCS in Sweden.
8.2.2.    Non-horizontal effects
          8.2.2.1. Introduction
(967) As regards non-horizontal effects, two broad types of mergers can be distinguished:
        vertical mergers and conglomerate mergers. Vertical mergers involve companies
        operating at different levels of the supply chain. Conglomerate mergers are mergers
        between firms that are in a relationship that is neither horizontal (as competitors in
        the same relevant market) nor vertical (as suppliers or customers).
(968) The Commission guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the
        Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the
        ‘Non-Horizontal Guidelines’)826 indicate that while in the majority of circumstances
        conglomerate mergers will not lead to any competition problems, in certain
        circumstances they can lead to anticompetitive effects. One such example is when
        the combination of products in related markets would give the merged entity the
        ability and incentive to leverage a strong market position in one of the markets to the
        other market by means of tying or bundling. Where tying or bundling is likely to
        lead to a reduction in actual or potential rivals’ ability or incentive to compete it may
        reduce competitive pressure on the merged entity, allowing it to increase prices.827
824 Form CO, annex C1b.III.B.8.
825 Trafikverket, submission of 6 July 2020.
826 Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of
    concentrations between undertakings, adopted on 28 November 2007 (OJ C265, 18.10.2008, p.6).
827 Non-Horizontal Guidelines, paragraph 93.
                                                       198
 ---pagebreak--- (969) The main conglomerate concerns in the present case relate (i) to the required joint
       operation of rolling stock on the one hand, and of ETCS OBUs on the other hand,
       and (ii) to the required joint operation of ETCS OBUs on the one hand, and legacy
       systems on the other hand. In this respect, some participants to the market
       investigation have submitted that:
       (a)     the significant market share of the merged entity in the installed base of
               rolling stock will likely be leveraged into the market for ETCS OBU, in
               particular in retrofit tenders for existing fleets because rolling stock OEMs
               would have an advantage in cost and time when offering a retrofit to its own
               rolling stock.
       (b)     access to legacy OBU systems would be key to equip any rolling stock with
               homologated ETCS OBU systems. Alstom and Bombardier would combine
               two of the largest legacy OBUs portfolios in Europe which are moreover
               highly complementary. Therefore, the merged entity would have the ability
               and the incentive to profitably engage in an anti-competitive tying and/or
               bundling strategy to foreclose its competitors in the ETCS OBU market.
         8.2.2.2. The Notifying Party’s views
(970) The Notifying Party submits in general that the Transaction will not increase the
       merged entity’s ability or incentive to engage in foreclosure in relation to the supply
       of ETCS OBUs (or legacy OBUs/STMs) to suppliers of new rolling stock.
(971) With respect to the interface between ROS and OBU, the Notifying Party refers to
       the following factors:
       (a)     both Alstom and Bombardier are already vertically integrated and active in
               both rolling stock and mainline signalling;
       (b)     Bombardier will not materially strengthen Alstom’s position in either ETCS
               or legacy OBUs. Bombardier would be a marginal player in ETCS OBU,
               overwhelmingly focused on internal supply;
       (c)     Similarly, there would only be limited overlaps in the Parties’ legacy on-
               board activities. In almost all countries where the Parties are present, there
               are alternative suppliers of ETCS OBUs / STMs;
       (d)     Many rolling stock players already have their own ETCS and/or legacy
               OBUs and relatively few rolling stock suppliers purchase ETCS OBUs from
               the Parties;
       (e)     Strategic behaviour could be counteracted via various means of retaliation.828
(972) With respect to interface between ETCS OBUs and legacy systems, the Notifying
       Party explains that:
       (a)     Depending on the integration scenario, ETCS OBU suppliers do not
               necessarily need to access interface information: standalone legacy OBUs
828 Form CO, annex C.1.a – V.C.1.
                                                  199
 ---pagebreak---                    and ETCS OBUs may operate in parallel. Under this scenario, the legacy
                   OBU either does not need to be connected to the ETCS OBU or only requires
                   basic connection to activate/deactivate the legacy system when needed.
         (b)       An alternative scenario involves equipping a train with a device called an
                   STM (‘specific transmission module’) as well as an ETCS OBU. The STM
                   allows the ETCS OBU to understand legacy signalling systems. 829 Under this
                   scenario, the STM provider typically delivers the STM equipment including
                   special tools and documentation as well as the associated engineering support
                   (commissioning) and trainings, where relevant. Regardless of the type of
                   project, the STM supplier should provide the relevant interface details to the
                   ETCS supplier. This scenario would be commonly the preferred scenario in
                   new build projects, where an STM is readily available.
         (c)       In another scenario, a train is equipped with a combined ETCS OBU and
                   legacy system (integrated solution). In cases of combined solutions the role
                   of the combined OBU supplier would be limited to basic integration support
                   to the rolling stock supplier/operator.
         (d)       There is no direct correlation between having access to the legacy system and
                   shares in supplying ETCS OBUs. According to the Notifying Party, this is
                   demonstrated by the fact that suppliers commonly win ETCS OBU projects
                   in countries where they are not the incumbent legacy system supplier, and,
                   conversely, legacy suppliers often fail to win ETCS OBU projects.830
(973) In any case, the Notifying Party submits that the merged entity will not have any
         increased ability or incentive to deny access to STMs or legacy systems interfaces to
         its rivals, nor to engage in any other exclusionary practices, for the following
         reasons:
         (a)       Both parties already offer both ETCS OBUs and legacy OBUs/STMs.
                   Alstom’s position would therefore not be appreciably strengthened as a result
                   of the Transaction.
         (b)       Alternative suppliers are available in almost every country where even one of
                   the Parties has a legacy solution. The only EEA Member State where the
                   Parties are the sole suppliers at present would be the Netherlands, where
                   ProRail developed its own STM, which can be licensed to any supplier who
                   requests it.
         (c)       In EEA Member States where one of the Parties is the only supplier of the
                   legacy systems, there would not be any merger-specific effects;
         (d)       If the merged entity were to attempt to engage in exclusionary conduct,
                   customers and rival suppliers would be able to counter that strategy. In
                   particular: (a) infrastructure managers (i.e., the Parties’ principal customers)
                   have the ability and legal responsibility to make legacy specifications
829 The Notifying Party explains that an STM is not an interface between ETCS OBUs and legacy OBUs.
    Rather, it is an additional equipment that can be installed on a train together with an ETCS OBU in order
    to allow the train to communicate with legacy wayside systems.
830 Form CO, annex C.1.a – II.B.1, pages 1-9 and annex to RFI 10 Q 2.1.
                                                          200
 ---pagebreak---                available; (b) rival signalling suppliers could retaliate by refusing access to
               their systems; and (c) rival suppliers can, and do, develop their own legacy
               STMs.
(974) As regard the issue connected with retrofitting the parties’ installed fleet with ETCS
       OBU, the Notifying Party explains that ETCS OBU has to interface with the Train
       Control and Management System (‘TCMS’), which is responsible, to varying
       extents, for tasks such as controlling traction and brakes on a train. TCMS can be
       developed by rolling stock suppliers, third parties OEM or equipment suppliers.
(975) With respect to retrofit projects, the Notifying Party submits that it is necessary to
       distinguish between two scenarios, namely (i) the scenario where the TCMS uses a
       specific standardized ‘subset’ and (ii) the scenario where interface information with
       the TCMS is the proprietary technology of a supplier. Between these two extreme
       scenarios, there would be other cases where modifications of the TCMS are more
       limited and do not necessarily involve the cooperation of the original rolling stock
       supplier. The Notifying Party further explains the following:
       (a)     Where TCMS interfaces are standardized (scenario (i)), ETCS OBU using
               the so-called subset 119 can, in principle, ‘plug and play’ with a TCMS
               complying with the same standard interface. Therefore, the ETCS OBU
               complying with this subset will be able to immediately interface with any
               TCMS using the same subset. Where compliance is not fully in place on both
               sides, additional works may be required;
       (b)     Where TCMS interfaces are not standardized (scenario (ii)), some
               engineering commonly has to be done to modify or to re-configure the TCMS
               in order to interface correctly with the ETCS OBU. This can be done in three
               main ways:
               –        The customer may tender the TCMS modification separately;
               –        The ETCS OBU supplier may sub-contract this work to the rolling
                        stock supplier. Such modification would typically take from […]
                        months for the development and adaptations and an additional period
                        of […] months for [re]-certification and would involve traditional
                        engineering activities;
               –        The ETCS OBU supplier may perform the modifications itself. In this
                        regard, older ‘analog’ TCMS systems would be more easily modified,
                        without specific support or intervention from the original rolling stock
                        supplier. Moreover, the need for TCMS modifications could be
                        reduced by the use of an intermediate gateway: no (or minimal)
                        modification would be required from the rolling stock supplier.831
(976) For new-build rolling stock, rolling stock and ETCS OBU providers define the
       solution together and agree on a TCMS interface specification at the design phase.
       Standardized interfaces exist and can be adopted. In particular:
831 Form CO, annex C.1.a – II.B.1, pages 9-13.
                                                  201
 ---pagebreak---       (a)     Subset 034 defines the list of signals to be exchanged between the train and
              ETCS OBU.
      (b)     Subset 119 standardizes the form of these signals, by setting a clearly defined
              format through which information will be provided. An ETCS OBU supplier
              can then directly interface with a TCMS that would be compliant to subset
              119. TCMS equipped with this interface can seamlessly interface with any
              OBU compliant with that subset. The use of subset 119 means that access to
              rolling stock suppliers’ proprietary technology is not required to do a retrofit
              project. Adaptations from the rolling stock OEM will not be required on any
              rolling stock equipped with TCMS using subset 119.
(977) In any case, the Notifying Party submits that the merged entity will not have any
      increased ability or incentive to engage in exclusionary practice with respect to
      access to TCMS interfaces, for the following reasons:
      (a)     Both Alstom and Bombardier already have rolling stock and signalling
              businesses. The Transaction will not bring about any change in this respect.
      (b)     With regard to new rolling stock, interfaces between ETCS OBUs and TCMS
              are agreed at the design stage.
      (c)     With regard to retrofit projects, for non-computerized TCMS (installed on
              older rolling stock), interfaces could be readily achieved without the
              collaboration of the rolling stock supplier. Moreover, non-computerized
              TCMS are often modified over the years so that the original rolling stock
              manufacturer would likely not have a competitive advantage as they would
              need to conduct the same reviews / physical inspections in order to interface
              with the TCMS.
      (d)     For computerized TCMS, there would be a number of factors limiting the
              merged entity’s ability or incentive to engage in foreclosure:
              –       Rivals have an incentive to co-operate, since they would face
                      retaliation if they attempted to engage in strategic behaviour, as ETCS
                      OBU retrofit projects are typically ‘mixed-fleet’. This is illustrated
                      with data from Alstom’s own activities, showing that [80-90]% of
                      Alstom’s ETCS OBU retrofit wins include retrofitting rivals’ rolling
                      stock;
              –       Customers would also be able to counteract any attempted strategic
                      behaviour. In particular, the customer may choose to tender the
                      TCMS modification separately;
              –       If a rolling stock supplier were to make it harder for its TCMS system
                      to interface with rivals’ ETCS OBUs it would likely significantly
                      harm customer relationships.
                                                 202
 ---pagebreak---          8.2.2.3. The Commission’s assessment
       (A)         Introduction
(978) Interoperability is required between the various subsystems (on-board, wayside and
       control systems) of a signalling system, both in mainline and in urban signalling. For
       the purposes of the present case, interoperability requirements may arise where the
       rolling stock and the OBU manufacturers are not the same.
(979) The procurement of signalling on-board equipment is normally part of the same
       tender as the rolling stock.832 In tenders for rolling stock, interested suppliers are
       requested to offer a product which includes OBUs compatible both with
       conventional systems and ETCS and it is the responsibility of the rolling stock
       supplier to ensure that the on-board signalling works seamlessly with the wider
       signalling solution deployed on the network. As a result, suppliers offering both the
       rolling stock and the ETCS OBU enjoy an advantage over competitors offering only
       one of the two products, as they have full control of the integration process.833
(980) In this respect, the Commission notes that the merged entity will have a significant
       market share in the EEA in the ETCS OBUs market, amounting to about [50-60]%
       (see section 8.2.1.1). However, Bombardier’s contribution to that market share is
       limited (about [10-20]%) and a series of competitors, both integrated and not
       integrated, will remain active in the market.
(981) In addition, both Parties are vertically integrated already pre-merger and, in tenders
       including both rolling stock and on-board signalling, are able to supply (and
       generally supply) an integrated solution including both rolling stock and OBUs. This
       is particularly true for Bombardier, which is active in the ETCS OBUs projects
       market mainly for its internal purposes, i.e. to provide its rolling stock with OBUs,
       for participation in integrated tenders (see section 8.2.1.1).
(982) The result of the market investigation was mixed in this respect. In particular,
       although some participants submitted that the merged entity will have the ability
       (and the incentive) to require rolling stock customers to purchase both its rolling
       stock and signalling solutions (in particular OBUs), it was confirmed that integrated
       players already have this ability and in general offer bundled packages. 834 It was also
       submitted that this will not be a constraint but rather a benefit in terms of cost
       reduction and homologation time reduction.835
(983) These considerations are also applicable when considering a pure supplier/customer
       relationship between signalling and rolling stock suppliers (vertical aspects). In this
       respect – and without prejudice to the interoperability issues explained below – the
       Commission considers that the Transaction does not appear to cause competitive
       concerns, as:
832 Q1, replies to question 56, Q2, replies to question 60; Q3, replies to question 69: Q4, replies to question
    54; Q5, replies to question 55.1; Q7, replies to question 56.1.
833 Q7, replies to questions 51.1 and 51.1.1.
834 Q1, replies to question 55, Q2, replies to question 61; Q3, replies to question 70: Q4, replies to question
    55; Q7, replies to question 56.1.
835 NTV response to Q2, question 61.1;
                                                          203
 ---pagebreak---         (a)     With respect to a possible input foreclosure scenario, as confirmed in
                previous section 8.2.1.1 following the Transaction several producers of ETCS
                OBUs will remain active in the market to supply rivals rolling stock operators
                (most of which are, in any event, already vertically integrated). Moreover,
                already today Bombardier is principally focussed on internal supplies and has
                only limited sales to third parties. With respect to legacy OBUs, the
                Transaction does not appear to cause any change in legacy OBU projects, as
                the Parties do not overlap. The Parties only overlap in legacy OBU products
                in the Netherlands, and competitive effects in this regard are addressed in
                following section 8.3.1.2 and the related commitment.
        (b)     With respect to a possible customer foreclosure scenario, both Parties are
                already vertically integrated and do not constitute relevant customers for
                OBUs suppliers.
(984) However, several respondents to the market investigation raised concerns with
        respect to retrofitting existing rolling stock with OBUs and in general with respect to
        the necessary interfaces between ETCS OBUs and other systems (legacy or train
        control systems). It was submitted that the mere fact that the rolling stock OEM
        might have an incentive and the ability to equip new vehicles with its own OBUs is
        not an issue in itself, as it does not limit the customer’s ability to purchase OBUs
        from different suppliers at a later stage for the purposes of retrofitting/modernizing.
        However, this ability is limited in practice, as long as there are no standardized
        interfaces and/or obligations to disclose information and technology. Customers only
        have limited means to address these issues.836 Similarly, it was submitted that for
        new trains the situation should not change substantially following the Transaction,
        but with respect to the later implementation of the latest on-board signalling
        equipment in existing fleets the choice would be limited (with adverse effects on
        pricing) if the manufacturer only supports its own equipment (as for re-
        homologation purposes the rolling stock OEM is usually required to be involved).837
(985) Therefore, the assessment of non-horizontal effects will focus on the two specific
        conglomerate issues raised in the course of the market investigation: the risk of
        foreclosure of rival ETCS OBUs suppliers’ through practices related to (i) the
        interface between ETCS OBUs and rolling stock (notably the TCMS) in retrofit
        projects, and (ii) the interface between ETCS OBUs and legacy systems.
        (B)       ETCS OBU interoperability with legacy OBUs and rolling stock (notably
                  TCMS)
(986) Interoperability issues can emerge in ETCS retrofit projects, where existing rolling
        stock has to be equipped with ETCS OBUs that need to communicate and interact
        with both the legacy on-board system and the train control systems (e.g. traction,
        power and brakes). However, interoperability with legacy OBUs can emerge also in
        projects involving new rolling stock.
836 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q7, question 58.1;
837 Alpha Trains Europa’s response to Q4, question 55.1;
                                                       204
 ---pagebreak---       (B.i)     Interoperability with TCMS
(987) In order to perform its tasks, an ETCS OBU must connect to the train control
      systems and thus to the rolling stock itself. The connection to the train interface and
      integration with the rolling stock is necessary for the OBU to perform its safety-
      critical functions and comprises a number of distinct interfaces between the existing
      train systems and the ETCS system.
(988) As the existing train interfaces are proprietary and not designed for interoperating
      with ETCS OBUs, the installation of ETCS OBUs requires adaptations on the
      software and hardware side. For this reason, the ETCS OBU cannot simply be
      ‘plugged into’ a socket on the train since the train does not provide for an
      interoperable (let alone standardized) physical/data interface. The ETCS OBU needs
      to be physically connected to the various parts/interfaces in order to perform its
      functions. Each interface can be different.
(989) The necessary adaptations to the existing and proprietary train interfaces require the
      collaboration of the rolling stock OEM. As each train class and ETCS OBU is
      different and their seamless and flawless interoperability safety-critical, the
      integration with the train interface (physically and in terms of data flows) can be
      intricate and complex.
(990) With specific reference to retrofit projects, connecting the ETCS OBU to the train
      control system is a significant work stream. The ETCS OBU takes control over the
      train’s operations so that the ETCS OBU controls the train control system. This
      connection requires a deep understanding of the architecture of the train interface
      and the train software, including of the language, the design, the electrical
      connections, relays, and circuitry. As this information is unique and proprietary to
      each train class and only available from the rolling stock OEM, much of the work
      can in practice only be done in close collaboration with the rolling stock OEM. The
      cooperation from the rolling stock OEM is indispensable in order to retrofit rolling
      stock with an ETCS OBU, regardless of the country and rolling stock supplier.
      Moreover, the final installation of the ETCS OBU on the train must be
      homologated/certified, which requires the approval of the rolling stock OEM.
      (B.ii)    Interoperability with legacy OBUs
(991) The ETCS OBU must also interact with one or more legacy systems, unless the train
      operates exclusively on routes fully equipped with ETCS wayside signalling
      equipment, which is currently very rare in the EEA. Given that the introduction of
      ETCS has not proceeded as fast as planned, and current planning does not foresee a
      full rollout of ETCS across Europe before 2040, the integration of Class B systems is
      required in almost all European countries.
(992) The interface between the ETCS on-board systems and the legacy system is
      generally obtained via an STM, which enables the ETCS OBU to communicate with
      Class B systems. The STM and the legacy OBU are provided by the legacy
      technology provider and are not part of the ETCS OBU. The legacy OBU is not part
      of the equipment that is installed in a retrofit project, but the retrofit project
      comprises the integration of the ETCS OBU with the legacy OBU via the STM
      (which is part of a retrofit project). The STM consists of specific sensing elements to
      wayside equipment and an interface for hardware and logic adapting interface to the
      ETCS. The ETCS must have installed special software to translate legacy signals
                                                 205
 ---pagebreak---         into unified internal ETCS communication. Through the STM, the driver is using the
        ETCS cab display equipment also on non-ETCS lines.
(993) An ETCS OBU cannot be connected to a legacy OBU by a simple plug-and-play
        connection. Rather, it requires software and hardware adaptations both on the side of
        the ETCS OBU and the STM.
(994) The availability of suitable STMs and in general of access to legacy OBUs is
        therefore vital for rolling stock/OBU manufacturers selling trains for use on both
        national and international routes – but STMs are in general subject to intellectual
        property rights and controlled by particular manufacturers. There is usually only one
        producer of each legacy system, with a long-lasting experience in the legacy system
        and qualified in ETCS market, which produces the Member State-specific STM.
        During the transition phase in which ETCS will not be available throughout the
        entire cross-border routes including last miles, alternative routes and nodes, STMs
        will determine the possibility to access a Member State network.
        (C)      The results of the market investigation
(995) As mentioned above, a series of market participants expressed concerns in relation to
        the mentioned interoperability issues and to the connected risk of foreclosure of
        rivals suppliers of ETCS OBUs.
(996) Siemens submitted that it expects growing demand for retrofitting the existing
        Bombardier fleet with ETCS OBUs and further equipment. The merged entity will
        have the ability to foreclose competing ETCS OBU providers from these projects by
        denying access to its proprietary train interfaces. The merged entity will also have
        the incentive to adopt conduct that would undermine and foreclose rivals. Pre-
        merger, Bombardier would have shown openness to cooperate in ETCS retrofitting
        projects where Bombardier cannot provide the equipment requested by rail operators
        in retrofit projects in-house (or only provide less competitive equipment). By
        contrast, post-merger, the merged entity will have a strong incentive to foreclose.
        This is because the merged entity benefits from retrofitting Bombardier’s stock with
        Alstom ETCS OBUs and further Alstom equipment and may apply inflated prices by
        shutting out competition. The loss of competition for retrofitting projects will not
        just harm rivals but will have a direct negative impact on train operators.838 The
        merged entity’s ability and incentive to engage in such foreclosure are examined
        below.
(997) Stadler submitted that the Transaction would create a dominant supplier for ETCS
        OBUs retrofitting activities. Large parts of the market will be effectively closed for
        any competitors, due to the fact that Alstom and Bombardier hold a market share of
        almost 50% in the installed base of rolling stock in Europe and quasi-monopolies in
        specific countries. Due to the advantage for the OEM for signalling retrofit services,
        based on proprietary interfaces, Stadler expects the merged entity to effectively
        foreclose competitors from indispensable inputs. Consequently, Alstom and
        Bombardier would successfully leverage their high rolling stock installed base
        market share together with their strong market position in ETCS OBUs –
838 Siemens’ submission of 21 April 2020, page 85.
                                                   206
 ---pagebreak---         complemented by an extensive portfolio of Class B systems – for the signalling
        retrofitting activities.839
(998) Stadler also submitted that post-Transaction, the merged entity would have access to
        a nearly complete portfolio of legacy systems and no other relevant international
        signalling player will have a comparable offering. Therefore, for several European
        countries, other ETCS OBU suppliers will be dependent on the Class B input from
        the merged entity to offer a homologated signalling solution (for both, new vehicles
        and retrofit). This will have a significant effect on the supply of ETCS OBUs.
        According to Stadler, the ability and the incentive of the merged entity to profitably
        engage in an anti-competitive tying and/or bundling strategy to foreclose its
        competitors will increase and a subsequent reduction in quality of supplier and
        product performance with significant financial risk for rolling stock manufacturers
        could be expected. Stadler also mentions relevant past examples of similar practices
        from the Parties. Stadler also expects increasing prices after the Transaction given
        the reduced competitive tension.840
(999) Similar concerns in relation to the competitive conditions of the ETCS OBU market,
        with particular regard to retrofitting activities and in relation to the availability of
        legacy systems, have been expressed by the European Rail Freight Association. 841
(1000) The result of the market investigation broadly confirms the competitive concerns
        expressed by the complainants. With respect to the ETCS OBU/rolling stock
        interoperability:
        (a)       Most respondents to the market investigation confirmed that a rolling stock
                  supplier has an advantage in a tender involving the installation of OBUs, as it
                  is the gatekeeper to the train interface and has thus an advantage in installing
                  the ETCS OBU.842 It has been submitted that access to information can only
                  be supplied either by the owner of the rolling stock or its original
                  manufacturer and that this is a grey area, very sensitive in terms of risks, for
                  any tender, especially for latest locomotives with digital interfaces;843
        (b)       Several respondents to the market investigation also pointed to difficulties
                  experienced in past tenders in securing access to information and resources
                  necessary for the interface between ETCS OBU and TCMS.844 Banedanmark
                  submitted the lack of access to documentation is a generic issue related to the
                  regulation of access to documentation in older train contracts and to
                  protectionist behaviour of certain train manufacturers.845 Bane NOR
                  confirmed that cooperation between vendors is a significant challenge.846
                  Deutsche Bahn submitted that it currently operates a large fleet of
                  Bombardier rolling stock and that Bombardier pursues a very restrictive
839 Stadler’s submission of 4 May 2020, page 23.
840 Stadler’s submission of 4 May 2020, page 17. See also Stadler’s minutes of the call of 24 March 2020.
841 ERFA – European Rail Freight Association’s submission of 4 May 2020, page 17.
842 Q5, replies to question 51.4; Q7, replies to question 51.1.
843 Thales’ response to Q5, question 48.
844 Q5, replies to question 49; Q7, replies to question 48. See also DSB, minutes of the call of 24 April 2020.
845 Banedanmark’s response to Q7, question 48.
846 Bane Nor’s response to Q7, question 48.
                                                           207
 ---pagebreak---                   policy when it comes to disclosing information or otherwise granting access
                  to interfaces between the different types of on-board equipment.847
        (c)       As for the role of customers (as tender organizers) in granting access to
                  interfaces, the result of the market investigation are mixed, with some
                  respondents submitting that customers do not have a real role and others
                  maintaining that customers can and do intervene to grant this access.848
                  However, Deutsche Bahn submitted that even if tender organizers are willing
                  to intervene, in many cases, it is not possible for a customer to grant access to
                  data and technologies itself or otherwise to guarantee open interfaces, given
                  that the relevant technologies remain proprietary and the required
                  authorization processes are run by the respective supplier.849
(1001) With respect to the ETCS OBU/Legacy OBU interoperability:
        (a)       Most respondents to the market investigation confirmed that a supplier of
                  legacy OBUs has an advantage in a tender involving the installation of ETCS
                  OBUs, as the integration between the two systems can be complex and in any
                  case requires the cooperation of the original legacy supplier;850
        (b)       Several respondents to the market investigation also pointed to difficulties
                  experienced in past tenders in securing access to STM/Class B systems
                  necessary for the interface between ETCS OBU and legacy OBUs,851
                  although the issue varies across countries. For instance, SBB (Switzerland)
                  submitted that it encountered significant difficulties to access both the French
                  and the Italian STM/Class B-systems. Thus, for access to the French Class B-
                  system it is currently practically impossible to buy the ETCS system from a
                  different supplier. For the Italian class B system the situation improved
                  recently because of more competition between different suppliers of legacy
                  systems;852
        (c)       The role of customers (as tender organizers) appears limited in this respect,
                  as in any case the potential supplier would have to negotiate with the original
                  legacy supplier.853 Thales submitted that the organizer of the tender can
                  specify in the requirement that the original OBU supplier facilitates access to
                  the necessary technology and information to ensure interoperability with
                  other signalling sub-systems, legacy OBU in particular. However, in practical
                  terms, customer assistance would always be needed, as it plays a key role as
                  referee and support for collaboration.854 Deutsche Bahn submitted that its
                  role as a customer is generally limited to asking the legacy supplier to
                  cooperate with other potential bidders and disclose information that is crucial
847 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q7, question 29.1.
848 Q5, replies to question 50; Q7, replies to question 49.
849 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q7, question 49.
850 Q5, replies to question 51.3; Q7, replies to question 52. See also Bane Nor, minutes of the call of 1 April
    2020.
851 Q5, replies to questions 45-46; Q7, replies to question 44.
852 SBB’s response to Q7, question 44.
853 Q5, replies to question 47; Q7, replies to questions 43 and 45.
854 Thales’ response to Q5, question 47.
                                                          208
 ---pagebreak---                   to enable interoperability. While certain legacy suppliers appear willing to
                  offer such cooperation, others are more reluctant;855
        (d)       Furthermore, most competitors expect that the merged entity would not
                  continue to give access to its legacy OBUs at reasonable commercial terms856
                  and that customers could not establish sufficient safeguards, such as open
                  specifications, obligations to grant access, to guarantee supply of/access to
                  signalling systems by a range of the Parties’ competitors.857 Customers have
                  confirmed their limited role in this respect. 858
        (D)         The Commission’s assessment
(1002) The Transaction will endow the merged entity with the capacity to engage in
        foreclosure by impeding access to necessary legacy OBUs and TCMS interfaces.
(1003) In this regard, the Commission observes that the Transaction will cause a significant
        increment of Alstom’s position both in terms of its installed base of rolling stock and
        legacy OBUs:
        (a)       With respect to the rolling stock installed base, according to the results of the
                  market investigation, the merged entity would have about [40-50]% of the
                  installed base of locomotives and multiple units delivered since 2000 in
                  Europe (Alstom [10-20]%, Bombardier [30-40]%). The installed base of the
                  merged entity would be even higher in Western Europe ([50-60]%, of which
                  Alstom [10-20]%, Bombardier [30-40]% and consortia Alstom/Bombardier
                  [0-5]%) and in some of the major EEA countries: Germany ([70-80]% of
                  multiple units), Italy ([60-70]% of multiple units), Sweden ([90-100]% of
                  multiple units) and France ([90-100]% of multiple units);859
        (b)       With respect to legacy OBUs, the merged entity would have access to […]
                  legacy OBUs in EEA countries (Alstom […], Bombardier […], with one
                  overlap in The Netherlands, where the Parties are the sole suppliers). The
                  closest competitor, Siemens, has access to legacy OBUs in nine EEA
                  countries. In […] EEA countries, the merged entity would be the sole
                  supplier of legacy OBUs.
(1004) The merged entity’s position in retrofit tenders could also be reinforced when taking
        into account Bombardier’s current technical and financial difficulties with ETCS
        OBUs latest developments. As mentioned above in section 8.2.1.1, Bombardier has
        limited offering for ETCS OBUs Baseline 2 and 3. This implies that, currently, in
        case of retrofit tenders for Bombardier’s fleet, rival suppliers could take advantage of
        this limited offering, as Bombardier would have less interest to deny access as its
        offer could not be competitive anyway. This would substantially change following
        the Transaction, as the merged entity could offer Alstom’s superior ETCS OBUs
        also with respect to Bombardier’s fleet to be retrofitted.
855 Deutsche Bahn’s response to Q7, question 43.
856 Q5, replies to question 53.3.
857 Q5, replies to question 54.
858 Q7, replies to question 55.
859 Stadler’s submission of 4 May 2005, pages 20-22.
                                                     209
 ---pagebreak--- (1005) Second, the Notifying Party’s arguments that cooperation from the original rolling
        stock/legacy OBU supplier would not be always necessary, for instance, (i) for
        TCMS: in older trains or when standard interfaces are adopted (see above at
        paragraph (975)); and (ii) for legacy OBUs: when alternative suppliers of legacy
        OBUs or STMs are available (paragraph (973)) does not affect the conclusions of the
        Commission’s assessment. At this stage of the investigation, those situations do not
        appear to be common in the EEA. In particular, as for scenario (i), future retrofitting
        activities will involve a considerable share of trains with digital interfaces, where
        cooperation of the original rolling stock supplier would be necessary; moreover, the
        adoption of standard interfaces (as subset 119) is not mandatory and is not used in a
        significant part of the rolling stock in use. As for scenario (ii), the availability of
        alternative legacy OBUs or STMs vary in different EEA countries and monopoly
        situations would still exist in some of them. Notably the merged entity appears to be
        the only legacy OBU supplier in at least four countries in the EEA (of which three
        contributed by Bombardier (Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal), and the other – The
        Netherlands – where only Alstom and Bombardier are currently present.860
(1006) Third, as concerns the alleged absence of direct correlation between access to the
        legacy system and market shares in supplying ETCS OBUs (paragraph (972)(d)), the
        Notifying Party’s data does not rule out the existence of an advantage benefitting
        legacy OBU suppliers. With the exception of Alstom and Siemens – that are the
        market leaders in ETCS OBU and therefore, logically, also have significant market
        shares in countries where they do not have legacy presence – ETCS suppliers have
        stronger positions in countries where they are also legacy suppliers. This is the case
        for:
        (a)     Bombardier, that has ETCS OBU activities in six countries (Austria, Czech
                Republic, Germany, Poland Sweden and UK), in four of which (Austria,
                Germany, Poland and Sweden) it supplies legacy OBUs (and in the other two
                its ETCS market share is limited at about [20-30]%);
        (b)     Hitachi, that has ETCS OBU activities in five countries (France, Italy, The
                Netherlands, Sweden and UK) in four of which (France, Italy, Sweden and
                UK) it also supplies legacy OBUs (and in the other one its ETCS market
                share is marginal, at about [0-5]%);
        (c)     Thales, that has ETCS OBU activities in one country (UK), where it also
                supplies legacy;
        (d)     ECM, that has ETCS OBU activities in one country (Italy), where it also
                supplies legacy OBUs.
(1007) Finally, it should be noted that in retrofit projects the correlation seems to exist for
        Siemens as well, as it has ETCS OBU activities in four countries (Austria, Germany,
        Spain and UK), in three of which (Austria, Germany and Spain) it also supplies
        legacy OBUs. Similarly, in retrofit projects, Mermec has ETCS OBU activities only
        in the country (Italy) where it also supplies legacy OBUs.861 Therefore, the data
860 Siemens’ submission of 21 April 2020, page 81.
861 Form CO, annex to RFI 10 Q 2.1.
                                                   210
 ---pagebreak---          provided do not appear to disprove a certain correlation between ETCS OBU and
         legacy OBU business.
(1008) The merged entity is also likely to have the incentive of engaging in foreclosure by
         impeding access to necessary legacy OBUs and TCMS interfaces.
(1009) In this regard, given the age structure of the installed base of rolling stock in the
         EEA and the long lifecycle of rolling stock, spanning several decades for each
         vehicle, a large number of vehicles is foreseen to be retrofitted in the coming years,
         offering OEMs a significant revenue potential. According to data submitted by the
         Notifying Party, the total number of vehicles to be retrofitted with ETCS OBUs in
         the next ten years (2021-2030) in the EU should range from […] to […] and the cost
         of retrofitting a vehicle should range from EUR […] to EUR […] for serial on-board
         deployment and from EUR […] to EUR […] for vehicle prototypes. Accordingly,
         the value of retrofit projects in the next ten years in the EU should range from EUR
         […] to EUR […].
(1010) As for the merged entity’s position in this respect, the Parties do not have data at
         EEA level but confirm their significant role, as in Germany, which should account
         for around or more than […]% of the vehicles to be retrofitted in the EU in the
         coming years, […]% of trains concerned would be Alstom trains and around […]%
         would be Bombardier trains.862 As indicated in paragraphs (995) et seq. above, the
         results of the market investigation confirm that the Parties will hold the largest
         installed base of rolling stock in the EEA. The Parties’ EEA-wide market shares, in
         particular in mainline rolling stock, also confirm this assessment.
(1011) As a result, the likely benefits generate from the implementation of a foreclosure
         strategy are significant. They are all the more material that the merged entity would
         not likely incur any costs by adopting such conduct. Revenues generated from
         cooperating in retrofit projects by providing access to legacy OBUs and TCMS
         interfaces are necessarily lower than those generated by the full performance of the
         retrofit project.
(1012) Furthermore, the Notifying Party also submits that the merged entity would be
         discouraged from engaging in foreclosure practices, because of the risk of retaliation,
         in the form of a reverse form of foreclosure by rival suppliers (paragraph (973)(d)).
         However, to play a constraining role, the risk of retaliation would need to render the
         present conglomerate scenario unprofitable. In this respect, account must be taken of
         the fact that the merged entity will have the largest installed base of rolling stock in
         the EEA and an unmatched portfolio of legacy systems, with activities in fourteen
         EEA countries. The merged entity’s closest competitor would be Siemens, with
         legacy activities in nine countries. Accordingly, retaliation by competing suppliers,
         if any, will necessarily concern a much smaller proportion of projects than the ones
         affected by foreclosure. Moreover, partial foreclosure cannot be excluded, e.g. in
         respect of minor or non-integrated suppliers incapable or retaliation.
862 Notifying Party’s reply to RFI 20, 26 June 2020, pages 16-17. Both Siemens and Stadler have provided
    their estimation in this respect, which although partially different from the estimation provided by the
    Notifying Party, confirms the significant dimension of the retrofit market in the next years and the
    prominent position of the merged entity. In particular Stadler assumes a EUR 450,000 costs for an ETCS
    OBU retrofit, on the basis of public data, that would lead to a market of at least EUR 4-6 billion in the
    upcoming decade (submission of 4 May 2020, page 23).
                                                         211
 ---pagebreak--- (1013) As a result, the merged entity is likely to have the ability and incentive to engage in
        foreclosure by impeding access to necessary legacy OBUs and TCMS interfaces.
        The impact of such conduct would be significant as it would be proportionate to the
        importance of the merged entity’s installed base of rolling stock in the EEA. That
        conduct would also have indirect effects in further reinforcing the merged entity’s
        leading position in ETCS OBUs, thus further impeding effective competition in that
        market.
        (E)        Conclusion
(1014) In light of the above, the Commission considers that the merged entity is likely to
        have:
        (a)      an increased ability to adopt foreclosure strategies against rival ETCS OBUs
                 suppliers, in particular considering the vast and unmatched legacy OBUs
                 portfolio, and the enlarged and unique rolling stock installed base, and
        (b)      an increased incentive to adopt foreclosure strategies against rival ETCS
                 OBUs suppliers, in particular considering the improved offer for
                 Bombardier’s installed base due to the superior Alstom’s ETCS OBU
                 products and the decreased impact on the merged entity of possible measures
                 of retaliations.
(1015) Moreover, the implementation of foreclosure strategies could have a significant
        impact on the competitive situation in the ETCS OBU projects market, in particular
        considering the dimension and the economic significance of the retrofit activities to
        be carried out in the EEA in the next years (see previous paragraph (1009)).
(1016) The Commission therefore considers that the Transaction gives rise to serious doubts
        with regard to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of possible non-
        horizontal effects, which could create or strengthen a dominant position or otherwise
        impede effective competition, in the market for ETCS OBUs projects in the EEA.
8.3.      Mainline signalling products
8.3.1.    Horizontal unilateral effects
(1017) The Transaction leads to horizontally affected markets in the supply of track
        circuits863, legacy OBUs, interlocking equipment,864 relays865 and Euro-balises and
        vertically affected markets in the supply of track circuits, interlocking equipment and
        relays as an input for the downstream markets for mainline wayside signalling
        projects (see section 8.3.2 below).
(1018) The Notifying Party notes that it has a limited visibility into signalling product areas,
        as the Parties’ activities mainly focus on signalling projects. The Parties do not have
        significant internal market intelligence in these areas and do not track competitive
863  Track circuits are devices indicating whether a given sector of railway track (a block) is vacant or
     occupied by a train.
864 For details on interlockings see section 7.1.1 above.
865 Relays are switches that open and close circuits electromechanically or electronically by responding to
     changes in current or voltage, often to control trackside components.
                                                           212
 ---pagebreak---         dynamics as closely as they do for signalling projects. Additionally, public data in
        relation to signalling products, such as data from the European rail supply industry
        association (‘UNIFE’), is not available.
(1019) In order to identify any horizontally affected markets, the Parties collected and
        analysed their order intake data and best estimates for rivals’ order intakes for
        signalling products for 2017, 2018, and 2019. In some instances, in order to exclude
        competitive concerns, the Commission has requested, and the Parties have provided,
        market shares estimates also for longer periods. The Commission has cross-checked
        this data against submissions by third parties whenever possible.
(1020) On the basis of this data, the Transaction will give rise to the following horizontally
        affected markets for standalone mainline signalling products:
        (a)       The supply of track circuits in the UK;
        (b)       The supply of legacy OBUs in the Netherlands;
        (c)       The supply of interlocking equipment in the Netherlands;
        (d)       The supply of relays in the Netherlands;
        (e)       The supply of Euro-balises in the EEA.
          8.3.1.1. Track circuits - UK
        (A)         The Notifying Party’s views
(1021) The Notifying Party notes that Alstom has had a negligible order intake in track
        circuits in the UK in the last three years, as Alstom’s track circuits [Information on
        Alstom’s production / process secrets] and Alstom [Information on Alstom’s
        business strategy]. Accordingly, all of Alstom’s track circuit sales [Information on
        Alstom’s business strategy].866
(1022) Moreover, the Notifying Party submits that track circuits are expected to be phased
        out entirely in the coming years in the UK as they are already being replaced by axle
        counters. Axle counters serve the same purpose as track circuits but are based on
        more advanced technology.867 As Network Rail, Great Britain’s railway
        infrastructure manager, plans to upgrade the technology of its railway in the coming
        years through re-signalling projects, by replacing the existing wayside equipment
866 Form CO, Chapter C.4. Alstom has explained [Information on Alstom’s R&D activities] (see reply to RFI
    36).
867 Axle counters, like track circuits, are devices used to detect the presence of a train on the tracks. Axle
    counters function by detecting the presence and traveling direction of wheels at various points along the
    right of way. The right of way is broken into “blocks” with wheels (axles) being counted into and out of
    the block. If the same amount of axles is detected departing the block as were previously detected
    entering it, the block is considered vacant and the section is presumed to be clear for a second train. Axle
    counters are also capable of determining train speed and direction. A track circuit is an electrical device
    used to detect the presence of a train on a single block and, optionally, to transmit information to the
    train. Each section of the railway forms part of an electric circuit, which runs a current from one rail to
    the other through a relay. Rails are used to link a power source at one end of a section with a relay at the
    other end. When a train runs on a section, it causes the current to bypass the relay, which tells the
    signalling system there is a train on the track.
                                                          213
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- (1027) Unipart Rail is part of Unipart Group, a multinational company headquartered in the
        UK with operations in Europe, North America, Australia and Japan. It is active
        across a variety of sectors including rail, where they provide both rolling stock and
        signalling solutions.
(1028) These suppliers account for [50-60]% of the supplies in the track circuit market, for
        both the 2015-2019 period and the 2017-2019 period.
(1029) In addition, Network Rail has confirmed its strategy to replace track circuits by axle
        counters in the medium to long term.870 Network Rail notes in this respect that its
        signalling asset policy requires all new projects to be deployed using axle counters.
        Track circuits will be replaced as part of major signalling renewals in line with the
        timeframe for ETCS deployment, with life-extension in the interim (even though
        Bombardier’s track circuits as spare parts will still be needed for at least 20 years).
(1030) Alstom has had limited sales of axle counters in 2017-2019 in the UK (EUR […])
        and Bombardier has had none. Network Rail also confirmed that it purchased no axle
        counters from the Parties in the last three years.871 ORR, the regulator for Great
        Britain’s rail networks, has explained that the primary suppliers of axle counters in
        Great Britain are Thales and Frauscher.872 [Confidential information on the Parties’
        UK activities].873
(1031) Finally, the market investigation did not reveal any particular concerns regarding the
        market of track circuits in the UK. While ORR highlighted the track circuits as an
        area where the Commission should focus its analysis, this is essentially because of
        the market shares presented to the Commission in the Siemens/Alstom case, where
        Bombardier was reported as holding a very significant market share in track circuits
        in the UK. However, according to the Notifying Party’s best estimate Bombardier’s
        market share in track circuits decreased to below [40-50]%, both for the 2017-2019
        and the 2015-2019 period.874
(1032) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction is unlikely to
        give rise to competition concerns as a result of non-coordinated horizontal effects,
        either through the creation of strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise
        significantly impeding effective competition, in the market for track circuits in the
        UK.
          8.3.1.2. Legacy OBUs – Netherlands
(1033) There are two legacy ATP systems in the Netherlands: ATB-EG (first generation)
        and ATB-NG (new generation). These are two separate legacy technologies that are
        not technically substitutable.
870 Reply to RFI 26.
871 Reply to RFI 26.
872 ORR submission of 2 July 2020.
873 Reply to RFI 45.
874 The Parties submit that as they do not have the knowledge of the exact track circuits market size in the
    UK, they are not able to assess their market position with certainty. However, the Parties consider that
    the data provided in Siemens/Alstom should not be used to inform the Commission’s conclusions as to the
    Parties’ position in track circuits in the UK, as this data did not include Bombardier’s data, and the time
    period for which the data was provided in that case is 2015-2017, and not 2017-2019.
                                                           215
 ---pagebreak--- (1034) ATB-EG has been deployed and is being used by NS (the largest train operator in
       the Netherlands) and by regional operators on all major Dutch lines, including
       electrified lines (~2 500 km), notably because these lines received priority at a time
       when ATB-NG was not available. ATB-NG is mainly deployed on some regional
       lines (~350 km), which are not electrified.
(1035) Alstom and Bombardier are the only suppliers of ATB-EG OBUs in the Netherlands,
       while Alstom is the exclusive supplier of ATB-NG OBUs. Alstom has also
       developed a combined ATB-NL (ATB Netherlands) product which has both ATB-
       EG and ATB-NG functionalities.
       (A)          The Notifying Party’s views
(1036) The Notifying Party submits that even though the Parties are the only suppliers of
       legacy OBUs at present in the Netherlands, any supplier can obtain access to legacy
       interfaces through the Dutch infrastructure operator, ProRail.875 ProRail, in its role as
       the coordinator of the ERTMS program in the Netherlands, has sought to develop a
       blueprint, based on the most recent Baseline, in order to enable the manufacturing of
       an STM for ATB-EG. A license to this blueprint can be provided to any supplier
       who requests it.876
(1037) Accordingly, any supplier can itself manufacture the STM needed for ETCS OBUs
       to interface with the ATB-EG technology with much less effort or investment than
       would be necessary for a supplier to develop the STM on its own. The Notifying
       Party estimates that a supplier would need EUR 500 000 (to cover industrialisation
       and hardware qualification costs) and 6 to 12 months for such manufacturing.
       According to the Notifying Party, these efforts are compatible with participation in
       ETCS OBU tenders, namely a supplier may bid for a tender for ETCS OBU and only
       launch the manufacturing of the STM for ATB-EG if its bid is successful.
       (B)          The Commission’s assessment
(1038) Table 40 provides an overview of the market shares in the market for legacy OBUs
       in the Netherlands for 2017-2019.
875 Form CO, annex C.1.a.II.B.1 and Parties’ replies to RFIs 18, 20 and 36.
876 See: https://ertms-nl nl/dossiers/stm-atbeg/default.aspx
                                                          216
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---        behaviour of a sole supplier will have a negative impact on sales prospects of all
       other OBU suppliers’.883
(1043) Fifth, new entry in the market is unlikely because possible entrants have reduced
       incentives to invest (i) in a technology that can only be used in the Netherlands and
       (ii) will in any event become obsolete when ETCS is fully rolled-out.
(1044) Sixth, even though the Netherlands have ambitious plans for ETCS deployment,
       ATB technology is likely to remain active for a number of years. It will indeed take
       until 2050 before ERTMS is fully rolled out nationally.
(1045) Finally, and consistent with all of the above, the market investigation revealed
       concerns about the impact of the Transaction in the market for legacy OBUs in the
       Netherlands.884 And even though NS, the largest train operator in the Netherlands,
       does not express concerns about this market, it essentially explains that this is
       because ‘[d]uring retrofit, we remove the Legacy OBU and change it for an STM
       which is part of the ETCS-OBU’.885 This means that competition in the market for
       legacy on-board systems in the future (at least for retrofit projects) will depend on
       the existence of an STM capable of replacing the legacy OBU on the train.
       Therefore, post-merger, competition will depend on the feasibility of developing an
       STM based on ProRail’s blueprint, since the only other alternative would be the
       merged entity’s STM for ATB-EG. However, as explained in paragraph (1041),
       ProRail’s blueprint is unlikely to constitute a credible alternative to the merged
       entity’s product.
(1046) In light of the above, the Commission considers that the Transaction raises serious
       doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of non-coordinated
       horizontal effects, either through the creation of strengthening of a dominant position
       or otherwise significantly impeding effective competition, in the market for legacy
       OBUs in the Netherlands.
         8.3.1.3. Interlocking equipment – Netherlands
       (A)        The Notifying Party’s views
(1047) According to the Notifying Party the Transaction will not give rise to competition
       concerns in the Dutch market for interlocking equipment for the following reasons:
       (a)      The increment brought by the Transaction is de minimis.
       (b)      Market shares for any period in the last 10 years are not representative of the
                Parties’ actual market power, due to the relatively small number of
                interlockings orders in the Netherlands in this period. This is due to the fact
                that ProRail has been waiting to conduct a broad-scale ETCS roll out via re-
                signalling that will involve the replacement of interlockings (see also
                paragraph (922) above).
883 Reply to RFI 19.
884 Q5, questions 35 and 46; submissions by Siemens (21 April 2020), Stadler (4 May 2020) and ERFA -
    European Rail Freight Association (26 June 2020).
885 Q6, questions 47 and 49.
                                                      218
 ---pagebreak---        (c)      The upcoming national roll-out in the Netherlands is likely to transform the
                competitive landscape by attracting significant competition. The setup of this
                project is expected to involve a combination of procurement of smaller
                interlockings (for which smaller players such as Hima would compete with
                engineering bureaus) and larger EULYNX-compliant interlockings, which
                will attract competition from all the major EEA players. Siemens and Thales
                will be particularly well-placed to compete in this environment, whereas
                [Information on Alstom’s R&D activities].
       (d)      The Parties’ products are not easily substitutable. Bombardier supplies
                [Information on Bombardier’s business strategy]886, while [Information on
                Alstom’s business strategy].
       (e)      The Parties will not risk the relationship with ProRail by raising prices for
                interlocking equipment. [Information on the Parties’ sales].
       (f)      ProRail is the ultimate customer for both ETCS ATP wayside and
                interlockings projects, both of which are much larger in terms of value than
                signalling products orders. Thus, the Parties have no interest to raise prices
                for interlocking equipment post-Transaction as that would jeopardize the
                Parties’ relationship with ProRail, and endanger not only the Parties’ future
                sales of signalling products but also any future award of mainline signalling
                projects in the Netherlands. Given the de minimis increment from
                Bombardier’s activities, there cannot reasonably be expected to arise any
                change to the merged entity’s incentives in this respect.
       (B)        The Commission’s assessment
(1048) Table 41 provides an overview of the market shares in the market for standalone
       interlocking equipment in the Netherlands for 2017-2019 and for 2015-2019.
886 Projects concerning depots, where trains are stabled, serviced and maintained.
                                                         219
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---          projects is liable to attract competition from other large players active in the EEA
         and consequently change the competitive conditions for the supply of interlocking
         equipment in the Netherlands.891
(1053) In addition, the Parties’ interlockings do not appear to be substitutable. In the
         Netherlands, [Information on Alstom’s business strategy], while [Information on
         Bombardier’s business strategy].
(1054) As explained by the Parties, to be used in mainline projects, [Confidential
         information on Bombardier’s interlockings].
(1055) Conversely, while Alstom’s mainline interlocking equipment could [Confidential
         information on the Parties’ production / process secrets].892
(1056) Finally, the market investigation did not reveal any concerns regarding the market of
         interlocking equipment in the Netherlands.
(1057) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction is unlikely to
         give rise to competition concerns as a result of non-coordinated horizontal effects,
         either through the creation of strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise
         significantly impeding effective competition, in the market for interlocking
         equipment in the Netherlands.
           8.3.1.4. Relays – Netherlands
         (A)        The Notifying Party’s views
(1058) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction will not give rise to competition
         concerns in the Dutch market for relays for the following reasons:
         (a)      The increment brought by the Transaction is de minims. The Parties’
                  combined share for 2017–2019 is moderate ([30-40]%), and the increment
                  brought by the Transaction is de minimis (below [0-5]%). Furthermore the
                  Notifying Party submits that Alstom’s entire order intake for 2015-2019 is
                  attributable entirely to [Information on Alstom’s business strategy].
                  Specifically, Alstom would receive purchase orders from [Information on
                  Alstom’s business strategy].893
         (b)      Additionally, Alstom does not consider Bombardier to be a close rival in
                  relays. Rather, its closest competitors for relays are Hima, Arteche and Mors
                  Smitt. These suppliers will continue to constrain the Parties post-Transaction.
891  The Parties note that the Netherlands’ re-signalling strategy implies that once ERTMS has been
     implemented on a track section, only ERTMS equipment can be used on this section. More than seven
     sections of track are expected to be equipped with ERTMS, starting as of 2022 and running until 2031 –
     see “ERTMS. Dossier Programmabeslissing - S1 Railmap” (“ERTMS. Programme decision file - S1
     Railmap”)      of May 17,          2019, pp. 22-23 and               27, available in Dutch at:
     https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/05/17/railmap-ertms-4-0
892 The Notifying Party explains in particular that Information on Alstom’s business strategy]. Nonetheless,
     [Information on Alstom’s business strategy] (see Parties’ reply to RFI 36).
893 See reply to RFI 45 updating the assessment provided in Chapter C.4 of the Form CO.
                                                         221
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---        Netherlands. It has a negligible order intake of EUR […] in 2017 and EUR […] in
       2018, resulting from sales to one customer, namely […]. Bombardier has not had
       any relays order intake in the last year.
(1061) Furthermore, ProRail confirms its policy to switch to electronic interlockings instead
       of relay based ones during ‘end-of-life’ renewals or major wayside legacy signalling
       projects.897 ProRail further explains that Bombardier’s relays are not substitutable to
       the relays used in the Netherlands and that no relays purchased by RroRail in the last
       three years for use in open wayside signalling systems, for minor alterations to
       existing relay based interlockings, for new electronic interlockings or for
       replacement as part of maintenance were supplied by Alstom or Bombardier.898
(1062) Siemens confirms that there is general trend among EEA customers to switch to
       electronic interlockings instead of relay based ones which will likely lead to a
       decrease in the use of relays.899
(1063) Furthermore, the market investigation did not reveal any concerns regarding the
       market of relays in the Netherlands.
(1064) In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Transaction is unlikely to
       give rise to competition concerns as a result of non-coordinated horizontal effects,
       either through the creation of strengthening of a dominant position or otherwise
       significantly impeding effective competition, in the market for relays in the
       Netherlands.
         8.3.1.5. Euro-balises – EEA
       (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(1065) The Notifying Party submits that no competition concerns should arise as a result of
       the Transaction due to the Parties’ moderate combined share and the existence of
       several suppliers will continue to exercise competitive constraint on the Parties post-
       Transaction.
       (B)       The Commission’s assessment
(1066) Table 43 illustrates the Parties and their competitors’ market shares in the EEA
       market for Euro-balises in 2017-2019.
897 Reply to RFI 31.
898 Reply to RFI 31.
899 Reply to RFI 28.
                                                 223
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2.     Vertical effects
           8.3.2.1. The Notifying Party’s views
(1071) The Notifying Party has identified vertically affected markets in the supply of track
         circuits as an input for the downstream markets for mainline wayside signalling
         projects in the UK and interlocking equipment and relays as an input for the
         downstream markets for mainline wayside signalling projects in the Netherlands.903
         (A)        Track circuits - UK
(1072) The Notifying Party identifies vertical relationships between Bombardier’s upstream
         activities in the supply of track circuits in the UK and the Parties' downstream
         activities on the markets for interlocking projects (where Alstom represents [10-
         20]% of the market) and ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects. The Notifying
         Party submits that no input foreclosure concerns arise because (i) the increment in
         the upstream market is very low; (ii) track circuits are being replaced by axle
         counters which reduces the ability of the merged entity to foreclose access to track
         circuits to its downstream rivals; (iii) neither Alstom nor Bombardier have had an
         ETCS wayside re-signalling project in the UK over the last ten years;904 (iv) any
         attempt to foreclose competition would be neutralised by Network Rail who can
         purchase track circuits directly from the merged entity.
         (B)        Interlocking equipment – Netherlands905
(1073) The Notifying Party submits that the Transaction gives raise to vertically affected
         markets as a result of the Parties’ upstream supply of interlocking equipment in the
         Netherlands and their downstream presence in the market for interlocking projects
         and ETCS wayside re-signalling projects. However, the Transaction cannot plausibly
         be expected to raise any competition concerns for the following reasons: (i)
         Bombardier is a marginal player with a de minimis market share in the upstream
         market; (ii) Bombardier does not currently compete directly with Alstom as the
         [Bombardier] interlockings it supplies first, [Information on Bombardier’s
         production / process secrets], second, [Information on Bombardier’s business
         strategy]; (iii) Bombardier is a marginal player in the downstream markets for
         interlockings projects and ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling; (iv) national shares of
         ETCS wayside re-signalling projects are not relevant for this assessment as re-
         signalling suppliers do not need to have nationally homologated interlockings to
         compete; (v) suppliers on the downstream market for mainline signalling projects
         typically source their interlocking equipment internally; (vii) the upcoming ERTMS
         roll-out will change the competitive conditions in the Netherlands.
903  The market for ETCS OBU products sold on a standalone basis is also technically vertically affected at
     the EEA level on the basis of the Parties’ activities in the downstream market for ETCS OBU projects.
     Nonetheless, since the Parties’ ETCS OBU activities mainly project-related and Bombardier’s order
     intake for ETCS OBUs sold as standalone products in the EEA in 2017-2019 amounted only to EUR
     […], this vertical relationship will not be examined further.
904 Bombardier’s only ETCS wayside project in the UK was a EUR […] test project. This project is not a re-
     signalling project, but a project to test products in a test track, and the train detection function is
     performed via axle counters.
905 The Parties’ assessment in Chapter C.4 of the Form CO was amended and completed by their reply to RFI
    45.
                                                          225
 ---pagebreak---         (C)        Relays – Netherlands
(1074) The Notifying Party identifies a vertical relationship between Alstom’s upstream
        supply of relays for mainline signalling and the Parties' downstream activities on the
        markets for mainline interlocking projects and ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling
        projects.
(1075) The Notifying Party submits that the merged entity will not have the ability or
        incentive to foreclose access to relays in the Netherlands to downstream competitors
        or increase their costs because (i) Alstom’s order intake in relays in 2015-2019 is
        attributable [Information on Alstom’s business strategy]; as such it is not an
        upstream product for interlockings projects or ETCS ATP wayside projects; (ii) the
        increment from the proposed Transaction is de minimis, as Bombardier’s share is
        <[0-5]% in relays and its offering is not substitutable with the relays supplied by
        Alstom; (iii) post-Transaction, there will be alternative suppliers that will continue to
        constrain the Parties; (iv) downstream suppliers typically source their relays
        internally; (v) relays represent negligible a input into interlockings and ETCS ATP
        wayside re-signalling projects; (vi) the Parties’ share in the EEA-wide market for re-
        signalling projects is only c. [20-30]%, while Bombardier is a marginal player in the
        downstream markets for interlockings projects and ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling
        and the increment from the proposed Transaction in the Netherlands is very small (c.
        [5-10]%);906 (vii) the competitive picture in the Netherlands will change
        substantially as a result of the upcoming roll-out; (viii) sophisticated customers
        exercise countervailing buyer power and could easily sanction any attempt to
        foreclose competition.
(1076) Furthermore, the merged entity will have neither the ability nor the incentive to
        engage in customer foreclosure practices, in particular by restricting its competitors
        on the upstream segment for relays from access to downstream customers.
        Bombardier currently sources its relays internally, while Alstom, which sources its
        relays externally, will still have to rely on an external supplier to obtain relays for the
        relevant mainline signalling post-Transaction as the Parties’ relays are not
        substitutable.
          8.3.2.2. The Commission’s assessment
(1077) Table 44 provides an overview of the market shares of the Parties in both the
        upstream and downstream vertically affected markets, taking into account the
        appropriate product and geographic market definition.
906 The Notifying Party explains that the [70-80]% order intake share in ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling
    projects in the Netherlands for 2010-2019 derives from […] associated with an order intake of EUR […].
    Following a conservative approach, all signalling order intake for this project was allocated to Alstom
    although it won this project in consortium with […]. Bombardier’s [5-10]% order intake share in ETCS
    wayside re-signalling derives from […] associated with an order intake of EUR […].
                                                        226
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---        this respect that its signalling asset policy requires all new projects to be deployed
       using axle counters. Track circuits will be replaced as part of major signalling
       renewals in line with the timeframe for ETCS deployment, with life-extension in the
       interim.
(1082) In addition, upstream suppliers will remain after the Transaction, such as Howells
       Railway Products and Unipart Rail, representing [50-60]% of the order intake in this
       market.
(1083) Moreover, the Parties activities’ in the downstream markets are limited. Alstom’s
       market share in interlocking projects in the UK is [10-20]% and Bombardier is not
       active in this market. ORR has explained that while Bombardier is one of a relatively
       small number of global suppliers that is capable of bidding for major signalling
       projects, its wayside mainline signalling business in Great Britain has historically
       been on a significantly smaller scale than that of Alstom, with no control of an
       approved interlocking technology in the country. Furthermore even if, according to
       ORR, Alstom is one of the two holders of the intellectual property of the installed
       base of interlocking technology in Great Britain ((Smartlock), the other one being
       Siemens (with Westlock)), Alstom’s market share in wayside signalling projects
       involving interlockings for 2010-2019 are low.908
(1084) Regarding ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects, the Parties’ combined market
       share in the EEA is moderate ([20-30]%). Their combined market share in re-
       signalling projects for the same period, if only the UK is considered, is [0-5]%.909
(1085) ORR has expressed concerns that, due to Bombardier’s strong presence in the track
       circuit market and Alstom’s strength in the downstream signalling projects markets,
       there is a risk that the merged Parties could restrict access to Bombardier’s track
       circuit product (EBI Track product) to suppliers that rely on it for signalling projects.
(1086) However this concern is mainly based on the market shares presented to the
       Commission in the Siemens/Alstom case, where Bombardier was reported as
       holding a very significant market share in track circuits in the UK. However,
       according to the Notifying Party’s best estimate Bombardier’s market share in track
       circuits has decreased to below [40-50]%, both for the 2017-2019 and the 2015-2019
       period.910 Moreover, given the gradual replacement of track circuits by axle counters
       in the country, the existence of alternative upstream suppliers and the Parties’
       moderate market shares in the relevant downstream markets, the Commission
       considers that the Transaction will not lead to any input or customer foreclosure
       post-Transaction.
(1087) Finally, no other concerns were raised during the market investigation with respect
       to possible vertical effects of the Transaction on the upstream market for track
908 [10-20]% in interlocking projects, [0-5]% in legacy wayside ATP projects and 0% in ETCS ATP re-
    signalling projects – see Form CO, annex C.1.b – III.B.1.
909 Form CO, annex C.1.b – III.B.1 (Alstom: 0%, Bombardier [0-5]%).
910 The Parties submit that as they do not have the knowledge of the exact track circuits market size in the
    UK, they are not able to assess their market position with certainty. However the Parties consider that the
    data provided in Siemens/Alstom should not be used to inform the Commission’s conclusions as to the
    Parties’ position in track circuits in the UK, as this data did not include Bombardier’s data, and the time
    period for which the data was provided in that case is 2015-2017, and not 2017-2019.
                                                           228
 ---pagebreak---          circuits in the UK and the downstream markets for interlocking projects and ETCS
         ATP wayside re-signalling projects.
         (A.ii)      Customer foreclosure
(1088) The Commission considers that the merged entity will not have the ability or the
         incentive to foreclose rival track circuit suppliers by restricting their access to a
         sufficient customer base, for several reasons.
(1089) First, as explained, Bombardier’s activities in the relevant downstream markets are
         limited, while Alstom has not been active in the ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling
         segment over the last ten years and [Information on Alstom’s business strategy].
(1090) Second, several customers of track circuits, such as Atkins and Network rail, will
         remain post-Transaction.
(1091) Third, the market investigation did not reveal any concerns with respect to the
         Parties’ ability or incentive to engage in customer foreclosure post-Transaction.
         (A.iii)     Conclusion
(1092) In light of the above, the Commission considers that the Transaction will not
         materially affect the ability or the incentive of the merged entity to engage in any
         input or customer foreclosure strategy post-Transaction.
         (B)         Interlocking equipment – Netherlands
(1093) Mainline interlocking equipment is used as an input for interlocking projects and
         ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects.
         (B.i)       Input foreclosure
(1094) The Commission considers that the Transaction will not give the merged entity the
         ability and incentive to foreclose downstream signalling project competitors in the
         Netherlands, for the reasons set out below.
(1095) First, the merged entity’s combined market share upstream overall is moderate ([40-
         50]%), while the increment to the Notifying Party’s share is negligible ([0-5]%) and
         is even smaller if the 2015-2019 period is considered [0-5]%. Bombardier’s total
         order intake of EUR […] over three years relates to the supply of [Bombardier’s]
         electronic interlockings for yards projects to [Information on Bombardier’s business
         strategy].911
(1096) Second, Alstom’s sales of interlocking equipment in the Netherlands in the 2015-
         2019 period are not [Information on Alstom’s business strategy].912
(1097) Third, as explained in paragraph (1051) the current market shares may not be
         representative of competitors’ market power due to the limited order intake for
         standalone interlocking projects in the Netherlands in the last ten years.
911 Form CO Chapter C.4 and Parties’ reply to RFI 45.
912 Parties’ reply to RFI 45 and ProRail’s reply to RFI 46.
                                                          229
 ---pagebreak--- (1098) Fourth, alternative suppliers, including Siemens and Hima, will remain post-
         Transaction.
(1099) Fifth, as explained in paragraphs (1053) to (1055), the Parties interlocking products
         do not appear to be substitutable. Bombardier’s […] interlockings [Information on
         Bombardier’s business strategy], while [Information on Bombardier’s business
         strategy].
(1100) Sixth, ProRail has confirmed that it has started a tender procedure for wayside
         ERTMS equipment, including interlockings. As explained in paragraph (927), the
         goal of this tender is to contract one supplier for the main components of the
         wayside ERTMS system, including interlockings, for a period up to 12 years
         depending on planning and possible extensions. While ProRail acknowledges that
         Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens may have an incumbent’s advantage in this
         respect, the Commission notes that a tender procedure for ETCS re-signalling
         projects is liable to attract competition from other large players active in the EEA
         and consequently change the competitive conditions for the supply of interlocking
         equipment in the Netherlands.
(1101) Finally, the market investigation did not reveal any concerns relating to vertical links
         arising due to the Parties presence in the upstream market for interlocking equipment
         in the Netherlands and the downstream markets for interlockings and ETCS ATP
         wayside re-signalling projects.
         (B.ii)      Customer foreclosure
(1102) The Commission considers that the merged entity will not have the ability or the
         incentive to foreclose rival interlocking equipment suppliers by restricting their
         access to a sufficient customer base, for the following reasons.
(1103) First, Bombardier is a minor player in the downstream market for interlocking
         projects in the Netherlands, with a [5-10]% market share for the 2010-2019
         period.913 Indeed, during 2010-2019 it won only […] projects, […] of which was
         non-contestable.914
(1104) Second, concerning the EEA market for ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects,
         the merged entity will have a relatively limited market share (approximately [20-
         30]%, which is even lower ([10-20]%), if the last five years are considered), with an
         increment below [5-10]%. And while the Parties do have a significant market share
         based on order intake for ETCS ATP wayside re-signalling projects specifically in
         the Netherlands, the Commission notes that the relevant market has an EEA-wide
         dimension, in accordance with the results of the market investigation. Therefore, any
         possible market share at national level is not per se indicative of particular market
         power. This is also so, due to the limited amount of tenders in the last ten years in
         the Netherlands, pending the upcoming ERTMS roll-out.915
(1105) Finally, the market investigation did not reveal any concerns relating to vertical links
         arising due to the Parties presence in the upstream market for interlocking equipment
913 See paragraph (923) above.
914 Form CO, Chapter C.1.b., paragraph 63.
915 Parties’ reply to RFI 45 and annex C.1.b-III.B.3. to Chapter C.1.b to the Form CO.
                                                          230
 ---pagebreak---         in the Netherlands and the downstream markets for interlockings and ETCS ATP
        wayside re-signalling projects.
        (B.iii)    Conclusion
(1106) In light of the above, the Commission considers that the Transaction will not
        materially affect the ability or the incentive of the merged entity to engage in any
        input or customer foreclosure strategy post-Transaction.
        (C)        Relays – Netherlands
(1107) Mainline relays are used as an input for interlocking projects and ETCS ATP
        wayside re-signalling projects.
        (C.i)      Input foreclosure
(1108) The Commission considers that the Transaction will not give the merged entity the
        ability and incentive to foreclose downstream signalling project competitors in the
        Netherlands, for the following reasons.
(1109) First, the Parties combined market share in the upstream market for relays is overall
        moderate ([30-40]% for the 2017-2019 period and [20-30]% for the 2015-2019
        period) and the increment brought about by the Transaction is minimal (below [0-
        5]%).
(1110) Second, as already explained, the Parties’ relays are not considered substitutable.
(1111) Third, the Parties’ supplies to their competitors are already very limited. In
        particular, in 2015-2019, Alstom supplied relays in the Netherlands only to end-
        customers, while Bombardier supplied relays to a single non-end customer ([…]) for
        a negligible order intake of approximately EUR […], which is reflective of its [0-
        5]% order intake share over the last three years.
(1112) Fourth, there are multiple alternative sources of relays in the Netherlands, accounting
        for more than 60% of order intake.
(1113) Fifth, as the Parties explain, relays represent a negligible input into ETCS ATP
        wayside re-signalling projects from a commercial perspective. Generally, the
        average cost of relays is below [0-10]% of the overall value of an ETCS wayside re-
        signalling project and below [0-10]% of the overall value of an interlockings projects
        in the Netherlands. 916 Thus, any hypothetical price increase for relays post-
        Transaction would not improve the merged entity’s competitive position on the
        downstream segment because it would not meaningfully increase the total costs of its
        downstream rivals.
(1114) Sixth, as mentioned in paragraph (926), Bombardier has a limited role in this market,
        with only […] projects in 2010-2019, […] of which was non-contestable. Therefore
        the Transaction is not likely to change the Parties incentives to foreclose.
916 Reply to RFIs 36 and 45.
                                                  231
 ---pagebreak--- (1115) Finally, the market investigation did not reveal any concerns relating to vertical links
        arising due to the Parties presence in the upstream market for relays in the
        Netherlands and the downstream markets for interlockings and ETCS ATP wayside
        re-signalling projects.
        (C.ii)     Customer foreclosure
(1116) The Commission considers that the merged entity will not have the ability or the
        incentive to foreclose rival relays suppliers by restricting their access to a sufficient
        customer base, for the following reasons.
(1117) First, Bombardier is currently sourcing its relays [Information on Bombardier’s
        business strategy], while Alstom is obtaining its relays [Information on Alstom’s
        business strategy]. However, as explained, the Parties’ relays are not considered
        substitutable. Therefore Alstom will still need to rely on [Information on Alstom’s
        business strategy] for the relevant downstream projects. Other customers will remain
        post-Transaction, such as ProRail.917
(1118) Second, as mentioned, the market investigation did not reveal any concerns relating
        to vertical links arising due to the Parties presence in the upstream market for relays
        in the Netherlands and the downstream markets for interlockings and ETCS ATP
        wayside re-signalling projects.
        (C.iii)    Conclusion
(1119) In light of the above, the Commission considers that the Transaction will not
        materially affect the ability or the incentive of the merged entity to engage in any
        input or customer foreclosure strategy post-Transaction.
        (D)        Conclusion on vertical effects
(1120) The Commission therefore considers that the Transaction will not materially affect
        the ability or the incentive of the merged entity to engage in any input or customer
        foreclosure strategy post-Transaction.
9.      MARKET DEFINITION – URBAN SIGNALLING
9.1.    Introduction
(1121) Urban (also known as ‘mass transit’) signalling systems (‘urban signalling’) provide
        safety controls for metro and light rail networks. They prevent collisions between
        trains and respond to other challenges faced by network operators such as network
        congestion, security, and capacity constraints. As such, urban signalling systems are
        increasingly designed not only to ensure safety, but also to allow operators to
        improve the utilisation of their networks by allowing more trains to move more
        quickly and efficiently.
(1122) Urban signalling is principally a project-based business. Projects typically include
        project specific engineering, development and project management, manufacturing
917 The Parties have made no sales to ProRail in the last three years.
                                                           232
 ---pagebreak---        and/or procurement of equipment, installation and testing, and sometimes
       maintenance services. Projects typically comprise a signalling system including
       multiple subsystems as well as on-board and trackside units.
(1123) Urban signalling systems tend to involve a complete system tendered together rather
       than subsystems tendered separately. This reflects the fact that in urban projects, (a)
       the customer is the same for both on-board and trackside elements; and (b) urban
       Signalling projects are typically procured for a line or group of lines in their entirety
       including all the necessary elements for that line.918
(1124) In urban transport there is no interoperability requirement between networks in
       different cities. Within a city network, trains typically run on self-contained lines,
       meaning that signalling systems also do not usually need to interoperate between
       lines. By contrast, tenders for the extension of a specific line on a given network
       need to be compatible with the existing line. A non-incumbent supplier on this line
       would need either (i) to invest in an interface to interoperate with the signalling
       system existing on the line, or (ii) re-signal the entire line to compete for a line
       extension. 919
(1125) Urban signalling projects are based on conventional technology or communication-
       based train control (or ‘CBTC’).
(1126) Conventional urban signalling systems were developed and employed based on a
       fixed block system. Similar to mainline signalling systems, the track is divided into
       segments called ‘blocks’. Sensors (either track circuits or axle counters) are then
       placed on the track to determine whether any part of a train is occupying a block.
       Until such a block is free again, the next train cannot enter the block. This creates a
       fixed safety buffer between the train that is occupying the block and the following
       train. 920
(1127) Figure 3 illustrates how conventional technology works in metro. The sensors will
       detect whether a train is on any section of a block. The next train’s on-board unit will
       only be told to advance (known as being given a ‘movement authority’) when the
       upcoming block is completely vacant. This is because the system only recognises
       that the block is occupied but does not identify where the train is within the block.
       The following train will therefore be unable to enter an entire block until the whole
       of the previous train has exited the block.921
918 Form CO, Chapter C.2, paragraph 5.
919 Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 597 and Form CO, Chapter C.2,
    paragraph 6.
920 Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 599 and Form CO, Chapter C.2,
    paragraph 7.
921 Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 600 and Form CO, Chapter C.2,
    paragraph 8.
                                                  233
 ---pagebreak--- Figure 3: Urban signalling (Metro) – Conventional technology
Source: Form CO, Chapter C.2, Figure 1.
(1128) CBTC systems are based on so-called ‘moving’ blocks that interact with the train
         speed and surroundings. These systems rely on constant radio-based communication
         between the train and the track to identify with more precision where a train is
         located at a given moment in time. 922
(1129) The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (‘IEEE’) defines a CBTC
         system as a ‘continuous, automatic train control system utilising high-resolution
         train location determination, independent of track circuits; continuous, high-capacity,
         bidirectional train-to-wayside data communications; and train-borne and wayside
         processors capable of implementing automatic train protection (ATP) functions, as
         well as optional automatic train operation (ATO) and automatic train supervision
         (ATS) functions’923. IEEE publishes a CBTC ‘recommended practice’ that lays out a
         number of key or minimum functionalities for the design and functional allocation of
         CBTC systems, without prescribing particular technical or engineering criteria.
         According to the recommendation, the main principles of a CBTC system include,
         among others, (i) a high resolution train location determination; (ii) communication
         of this train location; (iii) determination of the movement authority for each CBTC-
         equipped train, based on train location and inputs from external interlockings; and
         (iv) communication of the movement authority to the specific train. 924
(1130) As shown in Figure 4, the fixed block system is replaced by a system that calculates
         blocks based on the actual positions of the trains and the required braking distance
         (plus a buffer) (the so-called ‘moving block’ system).
922  Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 601 and Form CO, Chapter C.2,
     paragraph 9.
923 Form CO, Chapter C.2, paragraph 5; IEEE 1474.1-2004, ‘IEEE Standard for Communications-Based
     Train      Control      (CBTC)       Performance       and  Functional      Requirements’    at:
     https://www.techstreet.com/ieee/standards/ieee-1474-1-
     2004?gateway code=ieee&vendor id=3552&product id=1214446
924 Commission Decision in Case M.8677– Siemens/Alstom (2019), recital 602.
                                                       234
 ---pagebreak--- Figure 4: Urban signalling (Metro) – CBTC technology
Source: Form CO, Chapter C.2, Figure 2.
9.2.      Relevant markets
(1131) Both Alstom925 and Bombardier926 are active in all main segments of the urban
          signalling projects market: (i) conventional metro signalling projects, (ii) metro
          CBTC signalling projects, and (iii) light rail signalling projects. They supply their
          respective urban signalling systems either as standalone projects or with urban
          rolling stocks in bundled projects.
(1132) The Parties overlap in the following possible markets: (i) conventional metro
          signalling projects at EEA-level; (ii) light rail signalling projects at EEA-level and in
          Germany; (iii) standalone CBTC signalling projects for metros at EEA-level; and
          (iv) bundled CBTC solutions and urban rolling stock projects.
(1133) In the following sections, the Commission analyses the product and geographic
          market definitions in the sector of urban signalling.
(1134) The Parties overlap in the following possible markets: (i) conventional metro
          signalling projects at EEA-level; (ii) light rail signalling projects at EEA-level and in
          Germany; (iii) standalone CBTC signalling projects for metros at EEA-level; and
          (iv) bundled CBTC solutions and urban rolling stock projects.
(1135) In the following sections, the Commission analyses the product and geographic
          market definitions in the sector of urban signalling.
925 Alstom’s offerings in conventional metro signalling includes the Urbalis 200. In metro CBTC signalling,
    Alstom’s portfolio includes the Urbalis 300 and 400, the Urbalis Fluence, and the OCTYS (for “Open
    Control of Trains, Interchangeable & Integrated System”) which is a particular CBTC system required on
    certain lines by RATP in Paris, and not offered by Bombardier. Alstom is active in the light rail signalling
    segment through its Pegasus 101 solution.
926 Bombardier’s main metro CBTC signalling offerings include the CITYFLO 450, and CITYFLO 650. In
    conventional metro signaling solutions, Bombardier’s offerings include the CITYFLO 250, the CITYFLO
    350, and the CITYFLO 550. Bombardier is active in the light rail signalling segment through CITYFLO
    150 and CITYFLO 250 and CITYFLO 650.
                                                         235
 ---pagebreak--- 9.2.1. Product market definition
         9.2.1.1. Distinction between standalone conventional urban signalling projects for
                  metro and standalone urban signalling projects for light rail.
       (A)       The Notifying Party’ view
(1136) While the Notifying Party considers that standalone conventional urban signalling
       projects for light rail are generally smaller in value and simpler than the standalone
       urban signalling projects for metro, it argues that the exact delineation of the relevant
       product markets can be left open as the Transaction would not give rise to
       competitive concerns under any alternative market definition.927
       (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(1137) In case Siemens/Invensys928, the Commission considered a possible distinction
       between signalling projects for metros and light rail due to differences in safety
       requirements and price but ultimately left the exact market definition open.
(1138) In case Siemens/Alstom929, similarly, the Commission left the definition of the
       market for urban signalling open because the Notifying Party submitted
       commitments addressing the Commission’s competition concerns regarding urban
       signalling.
       (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(1139) The market investigation confirmed that standalone urban signalling projects for
       metro are distinct from standalone urban signalling projects for light rail for several
       reasons. First, metro lines typically require special infrastructure and a more
       complex level of automation than light rail lines. They also use different principles
       and technologies. For instance, on tramways, conventional signalling is used only in
       the ‘manoeuvre zones’ in a discontinued manner using a detection system of other
       trains called ‘transit zones’ as opposed to the ‘blocks’ system used on metro lines.
       Then, trams are run mainly on a ‘driving by sight’ basis and aided by a road-type
       signalisation while a metro signalisation system controls train movement
       continuously and results in controlled train operation. In addition, in metro lines
       automation levels are superposed on the signalling system to assure increased
       security and increase operational performance.
(1140) Consequently higher levels of automation, lower dependence on the driver, higher
       level of security at higher speeds and continuous train control justify the
       segmentation between urban signalling systems for metro and urban signalling
       systems for light rail.
(1141) Notwithstanding the above and in any event, the exact delineation of the signalling
       market projects can be left open as the Transaction will not give rise to competition
       concerns under any possible market definition.
927 Form CO, Chapter C.3, paragraph 20.
928 Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), paragraph 13.
929 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 1297.
                                                    236
 ---pagebreak---          9.2.1.2. Distinction between conventional and CBTC signalling for metros
       (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(1142) The Notifying Party considers that CBTC signalling for metros (‘Metro CBTC’)
       would belong to a separate market from conventional signalling for metros.930
(1143) In particular, the Notifying Party argues that CBTC provides added functionality not
       typically provided by conventional systems such as (i) improved headway (allowing
       for reduced interval between trains, known as ‘headway’, and therefore more trains
       per minute and a significantly larger number of passengers transported), (ii) reduced
       wayside equipment (as CBTC relies more heavily on train-to-train communication, it
       reduces the amount of wayside equipment that is required, which can lead to reduced
       maintenance costs), (iii) increased automation and more sophisticated operations
       allowing higher levels of automation than conventional signalling systems (in some
       cases entirely unattended train), and (iv) increased security (continuous and
       automated monitoring and control of train speed, which allows higher safety
       requirements to be met vs. reliance on individual drivers).
(1144) Finally, the Notifying Party underlines that CBTC systems use more advanced and
       complex technologies and, as a result, tend to be more expensive than conventional
       signalling systems (for example, the average value of a CBTC project over the 2010
       2019 period was around EUR […], compared to around EUR […] for conventional
       projects).
       (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(1145) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission left the market definition for urban signalling
       open, including as concerns metro CBTC and conventional signalling for metros. 931
       (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(1146) The respondents to the Commission’s market investigation confirm the Notifying
       Party’s view that metro CBTC signalling systems belong to a separate market,
       distinct from conventional signalling for metros due to, among others, CBTC’s
       added functionalities, reduced wayside equipment, improved energy efficiency,
       increased security and its use of use more advanced and complex technologies which
       make CBTC systems more expensive than the conventional signalling equipment.932
(1147) However, the exact delineation of the metro signalling markets can be left open as
       the Transaction will not give rise to competition concerns under any possible market
       definition.
930 Form CO, Chapter C.2, paragraphs 14 to 16.
931 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 1297.
932 Q11 and Q12, replies to question 3.
                                                    237
 ---pagebreak---          9.2.1.3. Distinction between markets for standalone urban signalling projects and
                  bundled urban signalling projects.
       (A)       The Notifying Party’ view
(1148) Urban signalling for projects that consist in the bundled procurement of urban rolling
       stock and signalling systems are referred to ‘bundled projects’. The Notifying Party
       considers that segmenting the CBTC market according to whether projects are
       bundled or standalone would not be appropriate. Neither, according to the Notifying
       Party,933 would it be necessary to reach a view on this point in the present case given
       the lack of competition concerns under any alternative market segmentation.
(1149) To that effect, the Notifying Party explains that the provision of CBTC solutions is a
       project-based market and that, as a consequence, bright line distinctions between
       hypothetical segmentations between bundled and unbundled projects would not
       correspond to any competitive reality.934
(1150) The Notifying Party indicates that, in any event, the same solutions can be offered in
       bundled or unbundled projects and that all major CBTC players would be able to
       compete effectively in bundled or unbundled projects.935 Moreover, the Notifying
       Party argues that, on the demand-side, customers are typically free to choose
       whether to conduct their procurement in a bundled or unbundled manner.
       (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(1151) In Siemens/Alstom936, the Commission left the definition of the market for urban
       signalling open because the Notifying Party submitted commitments addressing the
       Commission’s competition concerns regarding urban signalling.
       (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(1152) The results of the market investigation confirm that there is no distinct market for
       bundled CBTC solutions and urban rolling stock projects, with the possible
       exception of CBTC solutions bundled with automated people movers.
(1153) Indeed, while some respondents argue that it is beneficial from a technical and
       commercial/financial perspective to bundle the rolling stock and the CBTC
       signalling solution, others consider that they remain free, and may sometimes prefer,
       for commercial and/or technical reasons, to issue separate tenders and purchase
       signalling and rolling stock products on an individual basis. Furthermore, some
       respondents argue that there is no real downside in sourcing the bundled project’s
       components from different suppliers to the extent that their integration is well
       coordinated (among others, by their own engineering teams). Respondents also
       explain that separate procurement can be more beneficial in terms of control over the
       procurement process and the chosen technology. Finally, bidding data shows that,
       with the exception of automated people movers, CBTC and urban rolling stock are
       not necessarily procured together in a single tender.
933 Form CO, Chapter C.2, paragraph 21.
934 Form CO, Chapter C.2, paragraph 22.
935 Form CO, Chapter C.2, paragraph 24.
936 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 1297.
                                                    238
 ---pagebreak--- (1154) As a result, there is no reason to consider a distinct relevant market for bundled
       CBTC solutions and urban rolling stock, with the possible exception of the
       automated people movers. In any event, any relevant analysis regarding the
       Transaction’s effects in bundled sales of CBTC and urban rolling stocks would be
       addressed, if required, in the only context of the assessment of possible
       conglomerate effects concerning the bundled sales of CBTC solutions and urban
       rolling stock.
(1155) In contrast, the market investigation did not allow to exclude the possible existence
       of a market for bundled CBTC solutions and automated people mover projects.
       Indeed, the Parties’ bidding data shows that CBTC solutions and automated people
       movers are always procured together. Accordingly, for the purpose of the present
       decision, a market for bundled CBTC solutions and automated people movers cannot
       be excluded.
(1156) In any event, the relevant market definition of possible markets for, one the one
       hand, bundled CBTC solutions and urban rolling stock, and, on the other hand,
       standalone CBTC solutions can be left open as the Transaction will not give rise to
       competition concerns under any possible market definition.
9.2.2. Geographic market definition
(1157) In the following paragraphs, the Commission analyses the relevant geographic
       markets in the potential markets in which the Parties overlap.
         9.2.2.1. Conventional signalling projects for metros
       (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(1158) The Notifying Party argues937 that the relevant market for conventional signalling
       projects for metros is EEA-wide due to (i) the absence of national homologation
       equivalent to that in mainline signalling and (ii) the acceptance of references from
       across the EEA. However, the Notifying Party admits that national or local
       specificities exist, such as the existence of SACEM in Paris, and the presence of
       certain players active on a more local or regional level.
(1159) Nevertheless, the Notifying Party argues that, in any event, the exact delineation of
       the relevant geographic market could be left open as the Transaction would not give
       rise to competitive concerns under either of the alternative market definitions.
       (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(1160) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission left the market definition open.938
       (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(1161) Most respondents to the market investigation consider that the market is at least
       EEA-wide due, to the absence of national homologation schemes, the acceptance of
       references from across the EEA or the ability to procure such systems from any
937 Form CO, Chapter C.3, paragraphs 22 to 23.
938 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 1297.
                                                    239
 ---pagebreak---          supplier within the EEA.939 However the exact delineation of the relevant
         geographic market can be left open as the Transaction does not give rise to
         competition concern under any plausible geographic market whether EEA-wide,
         national or city-wide.
           9.2.2.2. Light rail signalling projects
         (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(1162) The Notifying Party argues that the market for light rail signalling projects is EEA-
         wide, due to the absence of national homologation equivalent to that in mainline
         signalling, and the acceptance of references from across the EEA.940
(1163) The Notifying Party further argues that, in any event, the exact delineation of the
         relevant geographic market could be left open as the Transaction would not give rise
         to competitive concerns even based on a narrower assessment at national or city
         level.
         (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(1164) In previous cases the Commission never considered the geographic scope of the
         urban signalling market separately but rather analysed a unified signalling market
         including both urban and mainline signalling projects.941 In Siemens/Alstom the
         Commission left the market definition open.942
         (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(1165) The results of the market investigation did not lead to any different conclusion than
         the one suggested by the Notifying Party. In any event, the exact delineation of the
         relevant geographic market can be left open as the Transaction will not give rise to
         competitive concern even based on a narrower assessment at national or city level.
           9.2.2.3. CBTC signalling projects for metros
         (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(1166) The Notifying Party argues that the market for CBTC is at least EEA-wide, given (i)
         the absence of relevance of the interoperability between CBTC networks at a
         national or inter-city level, (ii) the safety and quality requirements that are typically
         broadly consistent across EEA countries (no need to comply with complex national
         homologation systems as in Mainline Signalling), (iii) the acceptance by EEA
         customers of references from CBTC projects in other EEA countries, and (iv) the
         safety certification on a project-by-project basis.943
939  Q11 and Q12, replies to question 12.
940  Form CO, Chapter C.3, paragraphs 22, 23 and 38.
941 Commission Decision in Case M.4337 – Thales/Alcatel Divisions Transport et Systèmes (2006), recitals
    21-24. Commission decision in Case M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV (2007), recitals 22-23.
    Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 24-27.
942 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, recital 1297.
943 Form CO, Chapter C.2, paragraph 61.
                                                     240
 ---pagebreak---         (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(1167) In previous cases the Commission never considered the geographic scope of the
        urban signalling market separately but rather analysed a unified signalling market
        including both urban and mainline signalling projects.944 In Siemens/Alstom the
        Commission left the market definition open.945
        (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(1168) The results of the market investigation with respect to the geographic scope of
        CBTC signalling projects for metros are inconclusive: while some respondents to the
        Commission’s market investigation946 considered that standalone CBTC projects in
        different locations differ to such a degree that a solution deployed in one city cannot
        be used in another city of the same Member State (and even less so in a city of a
        different Member State), others considered that the market is at least EEA-wide.
(1169) In any event, the exact delineation of the geographic market can be left open as,
        irrespective of the applicable geographic market definition, the Transaction will not
        give rise to any competitive concern on the possible market for Metro CBTC
        signalling even based on a narrower assessment at national or city level.
          9.2.2.4. Bundled CBTC and urban rolling stock projects
        (A)       The Notifying Party’s view
(1170) As in the case of the market for CBTC signalling projects for metros, the Notifying
        Party submits that, should there be a market for bundled urban signalling projects, it
        would be at least EEA-wide, for the reasons applicable to metro CBTC signalling
        projects.
        (B)       The Commission’s decisional practice
(1171) In Siemens/Alstom, the Commission left the market definition open.947
        (C)       The Commission’s assessment
(1172) The results of the market investigation did not lead to any different conclusion than
        the one suggested by the Notifying Party. In any event, the exact delineation of the
        relevant geographic market can be left open as the Transaction will not give rise to
        competitive concern even based on a narrower assessment at national or city level.
944  Commission Decision in Case M.4337 – Thales/Alcatel Divisions Transport et Systèmes (2006), recitals
     21-24. Commission decision in Case M.4508 – Alstom UK/Balfour Beatty/JV (2007), recitals 22-23.
     Commission Decision in Case M.6843 – Siemens/Invensys Rail (2013), recitals 24-27.
945 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Alstom, paragraph 1297.
946 Q11 and Q12, replies to question 11.
947 Commission Decision in Case M.8677 – Siemens/Invensys Rail, paragraph 1297.
                                                    241
 ---pagebreak--- 10.    URBAN SIGNALLING – COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT
(1173) The Parties’ combined market shares remain below [10-20]% in all potential urban
       signalling markets in which the Parties overlap. As a result, the Transaction does not
       lead to horizontally affected markets.
(1174) However, the Parties are active in various urban rolling stock markets in which they
       hold market shares in excess of [30-40]% that are complementary to CBTC solutions
       in the sense that they are subject to bundled sales. As explained above, competition
       concerns can arise in circumstances where the combination of products in related
       markets would give the merged entity the ability and incentive to leverage a strong
       market position in one of the markets concerned to the other by means of tying or
       bundling and where, in turn, such practices lead to a reduction in actual or potential
       rivals’ ability or incentive to compete, thereby reducing the competitive pressure on
       the merged entity and allowing it to increase prices. As a result, the Commission has
       examined possible conglomerate effects in relation to CBTC and urban rolling stock.
10.1. The Notifying Party’s view
(1175) The Notifying Party considers that there is no basis for competitive concerns for the
       following main reasons:
       (a)     While the Parties compete in steel wheel metros (with a limited increment of
               [10-20]% attributable to Bombardier), they do not compete in either
               automated people movers or rubber tyre metros as Alstom is not active in the
               former and Bombardier is not active in the latter. Furthermore, Bombardier
               has only won [a small number of project(s)].
       (b)     As a result, regardless of the exact market definition adopted, the Parties are
               distant competitors for bundled CBTC solutions and urban rolling stock
               projects due to their different commercial focuses and existing portfolio.
               Bombardier and Siemens on the one hand (in CBTC solutions and automated
               people movers bundles), and Siemens and Alstom on the other (in CBTC
               solutions and rubber tyre metros bundles), are closer competitors than
               Bombardier and Alstom.
       (c)     In addition, the Parties will continue to face strong CBTC players already
               present in the EEA. Any integrated or non-integrated supplier is able to
               supply equipment for CBTC signalling and urban rolling stock projects in the
               EEA and non-integrated suppliers can and do partner with others in consortia.
       (d)     Finally, the Transaction will also not result in input foreclosure as neither
               Alstom nor Bombardier acted in consortium or as subcontractors to other
               suppliers for their bundled offers.
                                                 242
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2. The Commission’s assessment
(1176) The Merged Entity’s combined market shares in the possible EEA-wide948 markets
         relevant for the present assessment are as follows: (i) [30-40]% in steel wheel metros
         (with a [10-20]% market share increment attributable to Bombardier), (ii) [80-90]%
         in the rubber tyre metro segment (where there is no overlap, Alstom being the sole
         Party active in this market), (iii) [40-50]% in the automated people mover segment
         (where there is no overlap, Bombardier being the sole Party active in this market),
         and (iv) [10-20]% of the Metro CBTC signalling market (with [0-5]% market share
         increment attributable to Bombardier).949
(1177) The Merged Entity’s combined market shares in the possible EEA-wide950 markets
         relevant for the present assessment are as follows: (i) [30-40]% in steel wheel metros
         (with a [10-20]% market share increment attributable to Bombardier), (ii) [80-90]%
         in the rubber tyre metro segment (where there is no overlap, Alstom being the sole
         Party active in this market), (iii) [40-50]% in the automated people mover segment
         (where there is no overlap, Bombardier being the sole Party active in this market),
         and (iv) [10-20]% of the Metro CBTC signalling market (with [0-5]% market share
         increment attributable to Bombardier).951
(1178) After the Transaction, the merged entity will continue to face competitors on all
         markets concerned. As assessed above, in section 6.4, the merged entity will face
         competition from several suppliers in steel wheel metros. In rubber tyre metros and
         automated people movers, where the merged entity will hold higher market shares,
         the Parties do not overlap, so that the Transaction will not generate a change in the
         market structure. On the Metro CBTC signalling market, the merged entity will
         continue to be constrained by Siemens and Thales who will remain the largest
         players, with market shares of [30-40]% and [30-40]%, respectively over the 2010-
         2019 period. The merged entity will only be the third player overall and closely
         followed by Hitachi (with [10-20]%).
(1179) The results of the market investigation confirm that competitors will be able to
         replicate possible bundles offered by the merged entity either on a stand-alone basis
         or in consortia with other rolling stock and/or signalling suppliers. In that context,
         the results of the market investigation dismissed the concerns raised by one market
         participant regarding the absorption by Alstom, and hence the argued
         ‘disappearance’ of Bombardier as a supplier of CBTC solutions for urban rolling
         stock, for the following main reasons:
         (a)      The Parties are already, pre-Transaction, integrated players that can compete
                  in bundled projects with their own bundled offers. In fact, between 2010 and
948  The Parties do not overlap in CBTC at national and city level. The Parties do not overlap either in rubber
     tyre metros and automated people movers, only in steel wheel metros. The results of the market
     investigation confirmed the geographic definition of the steel wheel metros to be EEA-wide (including
     Switzerland).
949 See Section 6.4. Urban Rolling Stock.
950 The Parties do not overlap in CBTC at national and city level. The Parties do not overlap either in rubber
     tyre metros and automated people movers, only in steel wheel metros. The results of the market
     investigation confirmed the geographic definition of the steel wheel metros to be EEA-wide (including
     Switzerland).
951 See Section 6.4. Urban Rolling Stock.
                                                        243
 ---pagebreak---                   2019, [Information on the Parties’ bidding strategy]. Instead, [Information
                  based on the Parties’ bidding data];
       (b)        Moreover, even when excluding the merged entity (which will, post-
                  Transaction, not represent more than [10-20]% of the Metro CBTC signalling
                  solutions market), the remaining rolling stock-only competitors can, post-
                  Transaction, continue to team up with Thales, Hitachi or Siemens;
       (c)        Finally, in any event, the Transaction induces an extremely low market share
                  increment in CBTC signalling for metros (i.e., [0-5]%) and therefore does not
                  appear to materially affect the Parties incentives to enter into consortia with
                  rolling stock competitors when they are not in a position to offer a
                  competitive offer on a standalone basis, for instance, when their existing
                  solutions do not meet the customers’ technical criteria and require substantial
                  changes. The Transaction will consequently not impact the merged entity’s
                  incentive to enter into consortia with competitors.
(1180) In addition, counter strategies are available to customers who can switch suppliers
       when it comes to tendering bundled CBTC signalling and urban rolling stock
       projects given the typical absence of interoperability requirements between lines (or
       between urban and mainline networks) as well as the absence of national
       homologation of the kind required in mainline signalling. The market investigation
       indeed confirmed that (i) customers can and do procure urban rolling stock and
       urban signalling solutions on a separate basis, and (ii) that customers will continue to
       be able to mix and match CBTC signalling and urban rolling stock from different
       suppliers who would form partnerships to bid together.952
(1181) On that basis, the Merged Entity’s ability to engage in foreclosure can be excluded.
       The Commission has therefore dismissed the possible conglomerate effects that
       could have arisen from the Transaction on the urban rolling stock and CBTC
       solutions markets.
10.3. Conclusion
(1182) Based on the above analysis, the Commission’s assessment is therefore that,
       irrespective of the market definition adopted, the Transaction does not raise serious
       doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market as a result of conglomerate
       effects, which could create or strengthen a dominant position or otherwise impede
       effective competition, in the markets for CBTC signalling and the supply of metros
       and automated people movers.
11.    PROPOSED COMMITMENTS
11.1. Analytical Framework
(1183) When a concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal
       market, the parties may undertake to modify the concentration so as to remove the
952 Q12, replies to question 4 to 8 and 17 to 18.
                                                     244
 ---pagebreak---          grounds for the serious doubts identified by the Commission and thereby gain
         clearance of their merger in phase I.953
(1184) It is for the parties to the concentration to put forward commitments.954 The
         Commission only has the power to accept commitments that are deemed capable of
         rendering the concentration compatible with the internal market. 955 In phase I,
         commitments can only be accepted where the competition problem is readily
         identifiable and can easily be remedied. The remedies therefore need to solve the
         competition problem identified in a clear-cut manner, so that it is not necessary to
         enter into an in-depth investigation and that the commitments are sufficient to clearly
         rule out serious doubts within the meaning of Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger
         Regulation. Where the assessment confirms that the proposed commitments remove
         the grounds for serious doubts on this basis, the Commission clears the merger in
         phase I.956
(1185) As concerns the form of acceptable commitments, the Merger Regulation leaves
         discretion to the Commission as long as the commitments meet the requisite
         standard.957
(1186) While divestiture commitments are generally the best way to eliminate competition
         concerns resulting from horizontal overlaps, other structural commitments, such as
         access remedies, or other non-divestiture remedies may be suitable to resolve
         concerns if they are equivalent to divestitures in their effects.958
(1187) In the ultimate assessment of proposed commitments, the Commission considers all
         relevant factors including inter alia the type, scale and scope of the proposed
         commitments, judged by reference to the structure and particular characteristics of
         the market concerned, including the position of the parties and other participants on
         the market.959 The commitments must be capable of being implemented effectively
         within a short period.960
11.2. Procedure
(1188) In order to remove the serious doubts arising from the Transaction described in
         sections 6.2, 6.3, 8.2.2 and 8.3.1.2 and render the concentration compatible with the
         internal market, the Notifying Party submitted a set of commitments under Article
         6(2) of the Merger Regulation on 9 July 2020 (the ‘Initial Commitments’).
(1189) The Commission launched a market test of the Initial Commitments on 10 July 2020,
         seeking responses from customers and competitors of the Parties. The Commission
953 Commission notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (the “Remedies Notice”), OJ C 267, 22.10.2008, p.1,
    paragraph 5.
954 Remedies Notice, paragraph 6.
955 Remedies Notice, paragraph 9.
956 Remedies Notice, paragraph 81.
957 Case T-177/04 easyJet v Commission [2006] ECR II-1913, paragraph 197.
958 Remedies Notice, paragraph 19.
959 Remedies Notice, paragraph 12.
960 Remedies Notice, paragraph 9.
                                                     245
 ---pagebreak---         also received comments from national competition authorities, in particular from
        CMA, and rail regulators (ORR).
(1190) The Commission informed the Parties of the results of the market test on 22 July
        2020.
(1191) Following the feedback received from market participants in the market test, the
        Parties submitted revised commitments on 30 July 2020 (the ‘Final Commitments’),
        which are annexed to this Decision and form an integral part thereof.
11.3. Description of the proposed commitments
11.3.1. The Initial Commitments
          11.3.1.1. The Very High-Speed Commitments
(1192) The Notifying Party proposes to divest Bombardier’ scope of the Zefiro V300
        platform and, at the option of the Purchaser, sell or lease its plant located in Vado
        Ligure, Italy (together, the ‘Very High-Speed Commitments’).
(1193) Alstom commits to transfer the Very High-Speed Commitments to an independent
        and unconnected party that has the financial resources, expertise, and incentive to
        maintain and develop the business as a viable and active competitive force in the
        EEA (the ‘Purchaser’).
(1194) In particular, the Very High-Speed Commitments comprises:
             Zefiro V300-specific IP and documentation. The Notifying Party offers to
                transfer all Zefiro V300-specific IP rights and documentation relating to
                Bombardier’s scope. This includes all Zefiro V300-specific platform- and
                component-related IP rights, IP rights relating to the overall train design,
                vehicle architecture and vehicle safety and the application layer of sub-
                systems;
             Non-Zefiro V300-specific IP and documentation. The Notifying Party offers
                a non-exclusive perpetual license of IP rights and documentation that are not
                Zefiro V300-specific. This includes platform descriptions and all platform-
                specific mechanical and electrical drawings and specifications necessary to
                fully understand and manufacture the platform and Zefiro V300-specific sub-
                systems and components;
             Engineering personnel. The Notifying Party offers to transfer a team of up to
                […] from Bombardier’s Zefiro V300 product family capable of covering all
                key train design elements;
             Vado Ligure site. At the option of the Purchaser, the Zefiro V300 Remedy
                will include the sale or lease of its state-of-the-art facility at Vado Ligure and
                associated personnel to allow the Purchaser to benefit from the appropriate
                engineering, production, and aftermarket services facilities.
(1195) Alstom also offers to transfer, at the option of the Purchaser:
             The Zefiro brand, subject to a license back for the Zefiro Express;
                                                    246
 ---pagebreak---             Its current stock of components and spare parts;
            Up to […] personnel currently involved in providing maintenance services to
               Trenitalia for the Zefiro V300;
            A non-exclusive license for its train maintenance diagnostic software tools
               limited to Zefiro V300 applications.
(1196) In addition, the Notifying Party offers to transfer, at the option of the Purchaser, and
       subject to customer consent and applicable law, its contractual interest in supply and
       maintenance contracts for Zefiro V300 projects with Trenitalia and ILSA, including
       backlog (the ‘Existing Projects’), and its interest in any new agreements related to
       the exercise of options, call-offs, and any follow-on orders by Trenitalia or ILSA.
(1197) The Very High-Speed Commitments also includes the transfer, at the option of the
       Purchaser, of all supply agreements with external suppliers for main components or
       services for Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro V300 for the Existing Projects
       (including by transferring all relevant IP and procurement specifications), subject to
       any applicable consent rights.
(1198) Furthermore, the Notifying Party offers to put in place transitional arrangements
       (‘Transitional Arrangements’), including entering into temporary supply or licensing
       agreements with the Purchaser, in order to ensure a seamless transition, and a
       smooth transfer of all existing projects. The Transitional Arrangements would cover
       all ongoing projects, as well as (a) options, call offs or any follow-on very high-
       speed orders by existing customers, or future VHS orders placed by Trenitalia for
       which a call to tender was issued within […] years of closing of the divestment; or
       (b) future very high-speed bids by the Purchaser for new customers if submitted
       within […] years of closing of the divestment. The Transition Arrangements, which
       are designed to make the Purchaser independent as soon as possible by way of a
       transfer of IP rights, competencies and technology, would last until [Confidential
       details of duration of transitional arrangements offered].
(1199) For the duration of the Transitional Arrangements, the Notifying Party also offers to
       provide all such assistance and sub-system engineering support (e.g., know-how,
       training, secondments, etc.) as is necessary for the continued operation and eventual
       mastery by the Purchaser of Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro V300.
(1200) In the event that Hitachi acquires the Very High-Speed Commitments, the Notifying
       Party commits, subject to customer consent, to terminate its cooperation with
       Hitachi, following the Transitional Arrangements to ensure a smooth transfer of all
       existing projects. In the event that a Purchaser other than Hitachi acquires the Very
       High-Speed Commitments, Bombardier commits, at the Purchaser’s option and
       subject to customer consent, to terminate its cooperation with Hitachi for existing
       projects. Alstom also undertakes to obtain Hitachi’s approval for such termination,
       and to facilitate in good faith the Purchaser entering into a new, similar, cooperation
       arrangement directly with Hitachi thereby ensuring the continuation of the Zefiro
       V300 as a strong competing high-speed and very high-speed offering in the EEA.
(1201) Finally, the Very High-Speed Commitments set out that they do not include
       Bombardier’s interest in its ongoing bid (in partnership with Hitachi) for the HS2
                                                 247
 ---pagebreak---          tender, and any related IP rights, know-how, documentation, personnel, and other
         tangible and intangible assets.
           11.3.1.2. The Mainline Rolling Stock Commitments
(1202) The Commitments in mainline rolling stock consist of the divestment of (i) Alstom’s
         Coradia Polyvalent platform and the Reichshoffen plant (the ‘Coradia Polyvalent
         Divestment Business’) and (ii) Bombardier’s Talent 3 platform, and at the option of
         the Purchaser, the sale or lease of the Talent-3 specific carve-out of Bombardier’s
         Hennigsdorf site (‘Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area’), (together the ‘Talent 3
         Divestment Business’). The Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business and the Talent
         3 Divestment Business will be transferred to an independent and unconnected party
         that has the financial resources, expertise, and incentive to maintain and develop the
         business as a viable and active competitive force in the EEA (the ‘Purchaser’).
(1203) The Coradia Polyvalent platform is a proven mainline platform, currently
         manufactured in the Reichshoffen plant in France.961 To date, it has been sold at
         regional speeds […]. The Coradia Polyvalent has received homologation in France
         and Switzerland, and is currently undergoing homologation in Germany.
(1204) The Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business includes the following:
              Coradia Polyvalent-specific IP rights, including the transfer of the respective
                  Coradia Polyvalent-specific platform- and component-related IP rights;
              Coradia Polyvalent-specific documentation, including platform description
                  and all platform-specific mechanical and electrical drawings and
                  specifications necessary to fully understand and manufacture the platform
                  and Coradia Polyvalent-specific sub-systems and components;
              Non-exclusive license to manufacture the EMU and bimode traction systems,
                  limited to Coradia Polyvalent application including, at the option of the
                  Purchaser, supply agreements for the related components;
              Access to existing components required to manufacture and improve the
                  Coradia Polyvalent platform, including (i) a non-exclusive license to
                  documentation related to non-Coradia Polyvalent-specific components to
                  enable the Purchaser to source from third parties and/or, at the option of the
                  Purchaser, supply agreements for such components; and (ii) the transfer of
                  procurement specifications including a list of suppliers for externally sourced
                  main components962;
961 The Polyvalent is a versatile platform with a modular design allowing for a 3- to 6-car configuration with
    different entrance heights and interior layout. It is available in both EMU and bimode traction, and is the
    only low-floor bimode on the market.
962 Alstom offers to use commercially reasonable efforts to transfer or assign all contracts, agreements or
    relationships and understandings with third-party component suppliers relating to the main components
    specific to the Coradia Polyvalent platform for which Alstom relies on third-party suppliers (subject to
    supplier consent), also including available stock relating to the Coradia Polyvalent.
                                                            248
 ---pagebreak---               Coradia Polyvalent existing rolling stock contracts and associated backlog.
                  Alstom offers to transfer existing Coradia Polyvalent customer contracts and
                  related options along with existing backlog, subject to customer consent;
              Supply and Transitional Agreements, at the option of the Purchaser,
                  including for (i) carbody shells, bogies, and traction systems; (ii) TCMS
                  hardware & middleware; and (iii) provide transitional services agreements
                  for warranty services and support functions that are currently provided by
                  Alstom’s central organization.
(1205) The merged entity would retain certain R&D assets, including the IP rights,
         documentation and prototypes for hybrid, hydrogen or BEMU traction systems for
         the Coradia Polyvalent platform and the Center of excellence for carbody shells,
         located at the Reichshoffen plant. The Commitments also exclude the Coradia brand
         (which is shared with other platforms not subject to the Commitments).
(1206) The Talent 3 platform Divestment Business comprises the following main items:
              Talent 3-specific IP rights, based on an exclusive perpetual license (EEA and
                  Switzerland) for the marketing and sale of the Talent 3 platform and all
                  related IP rights;
              Talent 3-specific documentation, including platform description and all
                  platform-specific mechanical and electrical drawings and specifications
                  necessary to fully understand, design and manufacture the respective
                  platform and to enable the Purchaser to complete ongoing projects/future
                  bids in a stand-alone manner;
              Talent 3-specific non-exclusive license, limited to the Talent 3 project-
                  specific applications, subsystems documentation currently shared with other
                  Bombardier platforms and the transfer of procurement specifications
                  including a list of suppliers for externally sourced main components963
              Additional assets. At the option of the Purchaser, the Parties offer a number
                  of additional assets and services to facilitate the Purchaser’s manufacturing
                  and testing of the Talent 3, including: (i) testing services and track access at
                  Hennigsdorf; (ii) equipment for wheelset/bogies final assembly and car body
                  erection; (iii) Talent 1 and Talent 2 platform-specific documentation,
                  installed bases, existing service agreements and potential liabilities; and (iv)
                  supply agreements for assembled bogies and propulsion, engineering support
                  for subsystems including carbodies, and TCMS circuit boards production
                  (including engineering support for ongoing projects and bug fixes/updates on
                  middleware) for Talent 3;
              Supply agreements and additional agreements, at the option of the Purchaser,
                  including (i) assembled bogies and propulsion; (ii) engineering support for
                  subsystems including carbodies and TCMS circuit boards production for the
                  Talent 3. In addition, at the option of the Purchaser Bombardier offers to
963 Bombardier offers the same Commitment as Alstom (set out in footnote 942) with regard to the transfer of
    third party supply agreements.
                                                     249
 ---pagebreak---                    provide the Purchaser with additional agreements for (i) testing services and
                   track access; (ii) equipment for bogies/wheelsets final assembly and car
                   bodyshell erection; and (iii) Talent 1 and 2 documentation, installed-bases,
                   together with existing service agreements and potential liabilities.
(1207) At the option of the Purchaser, the Commitment also includes the sale or lease of the
          Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area, including assets, equipment, and personnel. As an
          option, during a transitional period of […], Bombardier will equip the Hennigsdorf
          Carve-Out Area with facilities needed for the manufacturing of the Talent 3 platform
          and offers to act as a sub-supplier to the Purchaser.
(1208) The Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business and the Talent 3 Divestment Business
          include, at the option of the Purchaser, engineering support, supply agreements and
          the provision of specifications needed for the upgrade of the respective platforms to
          operate at speed above 160 km/h.
            11.3.1.3. The OBU Commitments
(1209) The OBU Commitments comprise three sets of commitments aiming to address the
          non-horizontal concerns described in section 8.2.2 and the horizontal overlap
          concerning legacy OBUs in the Netherlands described in section 8.3.1.2.
          (A)        The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments
(1210) Under the ‘STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments’ the merged entity will provide,
          to any ETCS OBU supplier (the ‘Purchaser’), in a timely manner and on fair,
          reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms:
          (a)      Bombardier’s available standalone on-board equipment for legacy ATP
                   systems (defined as ‘Class Bs’) or STMs;
          (b)      Reasonable technical support for integration of newly purchased Class Bs or
                   STMs with the ETCS OBUs or rolling stock on which they are to be
                   installed;
          (c)      Interface Documentation964 for Class Bs for retrofit projects that require a
                   Purchaser’s new ETCS OBU to interface with already-installed Class B
                   equipment.
(1211) More specifically, Alstom will offer, to any Purchaser, on fair, reasonable, and non-
          discriminatory terms, the following, for use in the EEA:
          (a)      A supply agreement for Bombardier’s STMs for both retrofit projects and
                   new rolling stock (related to the Netherlands,965 Spain, Poland, and Belgium).
                   The supply of such STMs will include necessary documentation to facilitate
                   integration with a Purchaser’s ETCS OBU. Given the rarity of orders and age
964 This is defined as follows: “available information, documentation and specifications assisting Purchasers
    to interface an ETCS OBU system with Bombardier’s Class Bs”.
965 Regarding the Netherlands specifically, the STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments include both the ATB-
    EG solution and Alstom’s ATB-NL class B to cover the non-electrified part of the Dutch network. ATB
    NL [Information on Alstom’s R&D activities] class B solution which combines ATB EG and ATB NG
    [Information on Alstom’s R&D activities].
                                                         250
 ---pagebreak---                   of some legacy systems, specific provisions to address obsolescence issues
                  are included;
        (b)       A supply agreement for available Bombardier’s Class Bs. Where Class Bs
                  have not been manufactured for many years and there is no alternative supply
                  available and a redesign is required for the Bombardier Class B, Alstom
                  commits to offer interested Purchasers a quotation for the work to create a
                  new solution, at market rates calculated according to a formula indicated in
                  the Commitments;
        (c)       Reasonable technical support to help integrate STMs / Class Bs with the
                  Purchaser’s ETCS OBUs or rolling stock as part of a retrofit or new rolling
                  stock order;
        (d)       Access to Interface Documentation on a standalone basis for existing Class
                  Bs where required for retrofit projects that require interfacing a new ETCS
                  OBU with already-installed Class B equipment (i.e., Portugal, Finland,
                  Austria, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia, Poland) where available.
(1212) The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments exclude STMs where they are an
        integrated product with an ETCS OBU.
(1213) Alstom will enter into an agreement with Purchasers substantially on the terms
        provided in an annex to the OBU Commitments (annex IV).
(1214) Additional guarantees are foreseen in case Alstom ceases the production of STMs /
        Class Bs or where an STM is re-engineered for obsolescence reasons.
(1215) Access to Interface Documentation on a standalone basis for existing Class Bs will
        be priced on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.
(1216) Supply of Class Bs / STMs will be priced based on a benchmark of current pricing to
        be adjusted on a yearly basis according to a predefined pricing formula. Alstom will
        offer quotations to re-design Class Bs / STMs that have not been manufactured for
        many years or face major obsolescence challenges at market rates, where there is no
        alternative available.
        (B)         The TCMS Commitments
(1217) Under the ‘TCMS Commitments’, the merged entity will provide, to any Purchaser,
        in a timely manner and on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms
        Interoperability Documentation966 and reasonable technical support for modifications
        to Bombardier’s TCMS for the execution of retrofit ETCS OBU projects in the EEA.
(1218) More specifically, Alstom will offer, to any Purchaser, the following, for use in the
        EEA:
966 This is defined as follows: “The communication of the drawing(s), interface protocol, and other
    specifications allowing the identification of the necessary signals on the train schematics and cabling
    terminals, as well as any reasonably necessary ancillary technical clarifications which are necessary to
    ensure interface between Bombardier’s TCMS and Purchasers’ ETCS systems”.
                                                        251
 ---pagebreak---        (a)      Available Interoperability Documentation to enable interface connections to
                pair TCMS installed on the Bombardier’s rolling stock for use in the EEA
                and Purchasers’ ETCS OBU, on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
                terms;
       (b)      Where some reasonable adaptations to the TCMS are required to interface
                with the Purchaser’s ETCS OBU, Alstom commits to provide the technical
                support for the Purchaser to implement the interfaces with TCMS installed on
                Bombardier’s rolling stock for operation in the EEA on a cost-plus basis.
(1219) Alstom will only offer a quotation based on a complete written request, which, in
       order to allow Alstom to calculate the quotation, must contain (i) a detailed
       description of the planning for deliveries; (ii) the quantities needed and the services
       requested; and (iii) mechanical, electrical, and functional specifications of the ETCS
       on-board system to be integrated, including architecture documents with interfaces
       towards TCMS (functional and electrical) to allow Alstom to assess the necessary
       adaptations on the TCMS as well as on the signalling systems.
(1220) The TCMS Commitments shall be limited to the interface descriptions and the
       function description to be implemented in a TCMS. Alstom will not be obliged to
       offer support for unreasonable modifications of the TCMS.
(1221) Alstom commits to provide the Purchaser, on a cost-plus basis, reasonable support
       with obtaining homologation approval from the competent regulatory bodies.
       However, Alstom will neither be responsible for the new safety case of any train nor
       for the homologation of any trains that will result from such modifications. Alstom’s
       liability will be limited to the implementation of the interface and the train functions
       that will be specified by the Purchaser. The Purchaser will remain responsible for
       homologation and for safety as it relates to ETCS OBUs.
       (C)        The Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments
(1222) Under the ‘Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments’, Alstom offers to enter into a
       frame contract with the Dutch Infrastructure manager (the ‘Dutch Framework
       Agreement’) to supply the Alstom Class B (ATB-EG) for a period of twelve years
       on predefined terms indicated in the Commitments. The terms of the framework
       agreement are outlined in an annex to the OBU Commitments (annex B).
       (D)        Common provisions
(1223) The OBU Commitments will apply for twelve years from the date of completion of
       the Transaction. The OBU Commitments also provide the appointment of a
       monitoring trustee and includes a fast track dispute resolution procedure
       (arbitration).
(1224) Moreover, Alstom will create the position of a Commitments Relationship Manager
       (the ‘CRM’), that will act as a contact point and will coordinate issues internally
       within Alstom. The CRM will be charged with assisting all interested parties in
       resolving any questions, issues, or concerns regarding the OBU Commitments.
(1225) Finally, specific common provisions are set out with respect to the STMs and Class
       B OBUs Commitments and TCMS Commitments:
                                                 252
 ---pagebreak---         (a)       Engineering services will be priced based on a predefined hourly rate as
                  defined in the Commitments;
        (b)       Alstom offers to respond to requests for quotations within reasonable and
                  predefined time limits in order to allow Purchasers to prepare responses to
                  customer request for proposals for ETCS OBU projects;
        (c)       The Purchaser will commit to use information and products supplied by
                  Alstom exclusively to supply the specific contract identified in the written
                  request;
        (d)       Alstom’s obligations are subject to the Purchaser providing to Alstom all
                  required information to undertake the required work.
11.3.2. Results of the market test
          11.3.2.1. The Very High-Speed Commitments
(1226) The main goal of the proposed remedies in relation to the Parties’ activities in very
        high-speed rolling stock is to preserve pre-merger competitive conditions and
        maintain a credible alternative supplier of very high-speed rolling able to effectively
        compete against the merged entity’s product portfolio in the EEA and at global level.
(1227) The results of the market test overall support the view that the divestiture of
        Bombardier’s scope in the Zefiro V300 very high-speed platform would be sufficient
        to preserve competition in the very high-speed rolling stock market after the
        Transaction at EEA and worldwide level.
(1228) In that regard, respondents generally considered that the scope of the Very High-
        Speed Commitments transfers and licenses should enable the Purchaser to run a
        viable business that can compete effectively with the merged entity on a lasting
        basis.967 In addition, some respondents pointed out that the Zefiro V300 platform
        entails significant ongoing backlogs orders with Trenitalia, which would endow the
        Purchaser with the ability to actively compete with the merged entity.968
(1229) However, several respondents raised several issues in relation to the Very High-
        Speed Commitments, which relate to its scope and the clarity of its provisions.
(1230) First, some respondents indicated that the Very High-Speed Commitments would
        preserve competition in the very high-speed rolling stock market after the
        Transaction at EEA and worldwide level provided that the Purchaser is Hitachi, the
        platform’s co-developer. A railway operator indicated that Hitachi is the only
        supplier with the necessary technical knowledge in relation to the Zefiro V300
        platform because it has designed, jointly with Bombardier, the main components of
        the platform and it has had a significant role in the development of the whole train,
        in particular for interface systems between Bombardier and Hitachi technologies.
        The respondent further explained that Hitachi has a strong incentive to further
        develop the platform, since the Zefiro V300 is its flagship very high-speed rolling
        stock in Europe. As a consequence, according to the results of the market test,
967 Q14, replies to questions 8, 9, 11 and 14.
968 Q14, replies to questions 15 and 16.
                                                   253
 ---pagebreak---          Hitachi should be identified as an upfront buyer for the purpose of the Very High-
         Speed Commitments scope.969
(1231) Second, several respondents to the market tests as well as regulatory authorities
         raised concerns in relation to the exclusion of the ongoing HS2 tender in the UK of
         the scope from the Very High-Speed Commitments.970
(1232) Several respondents explained that the absence of transfer of Bombardier’s assets
         with respect to the HS2 Project would prevent Hitachi from becoming a standalone
         supplier of very high-speed rolling stock in the UK. In this regard, the proposed
         remedies would not restore effective competition conditions after the Transaction in
         the UK, since Alstom would retain control of 50% of the Zefiro platform in the UK,
         in addition to its own very high-speed portfolio. In addition, Hitachi indicated that
         the proposed remedies do not allow the company to respond to possible upgrade or
         repeat orders demands of the Zefiro platform coming from HS2.971
(1233) In that regard, respondents to the market test indicated that the proposed remedies
         should include the transfer of Bombardier’s contribution to the joint Zefiro platform
         offered to HS2 in the same manner as what the Notifying Party appeared willing to
         divest, mutatis mutandis, for the Zefiro V300. Such transfer, by making Hitachi the
         sole owner of the Zefiro platform in the UK, would also allow Hitachi to bid on a
         standalone basis in future projects in the UK.
(1234) The general concerns regarding the exclusion of the ongoing HS2 tender is
         supported by the CMA and ORR, which consider that the proposed remedies fail to
         address the potential competitive harm that the Transaction could cause to the
         competitive conditions in the HS2 tender.
(1235) More specifically, they consider that the proposed remedies do not protect the
         continuity of the competitive process of the HS2 tender in the case where the
         Transaction between the Parties is closed before the tender is awarded.
(1236) Pursuant to HS2’s tender rules, two bidders are prohibited to participate in the tender
         if they fall under common ownership. Should a merger between two bidders occur in
         the course of HS2 tender process, only one bid can remain and the concerned bidders
         are required to jointly propose which of their bids will continue in the procurement
         following such change of control. The choice of the bid to withdraw is the
         responsibility of the parties involved in the merger. In the present case, considering
         the parallel timeframe of the Transaction and the HS2 tender, the Transaction will
         likely be closed before HS2 finalises the tender process.
(1237) In that regard, the CMA and ORR indicated that the proposed remedies do not
         provide clear rules concerning the choice of bid to withdraw. The lack of adequate
         provision in the proposed commitment, with not procedure based on objective
969 Q14, reply to question 22.4.
970 As explained by the Notifying Party, the currently envisaged split of work for the overall contract
    (including rolling stock and services) between Bombardier and Hitachi in the context of the HS2 project is
    […]. Bombardier’s rolling stock scope of work is approximately […]% [Information on Bombardier’s
    cooperation with Hitachi for HS2], and its maintenance scope of work is approximately […]% (Form CO,
    Chapter B.1, paragraph 84).
971 Q14, reply to question 25.
                                                        254
 ---pagebreak---        criteria for selecting the best bids between the Parties, would allow Alstom to
       unilaterally decide to withdraw Bombardier’s bid, regardless of which of the Parties’
       bid is the best placed. This would significantly impede the competitive process of the
       HS2 tender.
(1238) In addition, the CMA and ORR expressed concern in relation to the provision
       regarding Alstom’s involvement in the delivery of the Zefiro platform to HS2,
       should HS2 select the Hitachi/Bombardier consortium. In that regard, they indicated
       that the proposed remedies do not provide unequivocal guarantees that Alstom will
       take over Bombardier’s contribution with respect to the rolling stock to be delivered
       to HS2. Absent a clearer provision, the CMA and ORR consider that the proposed
       remedy does not provide sufficient and concrete insurance with respect to the scope
       of Alstom’s obligation vis-à-vis Hitachi and HS2.
(1239) Third, several respondents considered that the Very High-Speed Commitment does
       not foresee sufficient provisions in terms of homologations, certifications and
       authorisations issued by a governmental organisation or other body, which are
       necessary for the delivery of the Zefiro V300 platform under the current project with
       Trenitalia and for any future projects (ILSA and others). They explained that if a
       partial divestment of some subsystems of the platform takes place, the continuance
       of the homologation process will require the use of the current manufacturing sites
       and the IP rights of the non-transferred subsystems and, as a result, the Purchaser
       will be obliged to be supplied by Alstom in the future. The development by the
       Purchaser of the referred subsystems would require time and costs and the initiation
       of a new homologation process for both each subsystem and the entire product.
(1240) In this respect, the Notifying Party would have to guarantee the proper transfer of
       Bombardier's know-how and resources, so that the Purchaser would be able to
       effectively continue the homologation activities maintaining the timing of the
       projects.
(1241) Fourth, some respondents indicated that the Vado Ligure site is not equipped to host
       very high-speed train final assembly and testing and that adapting the site to that
       purpose would be difficult because of its limited dimensions. However, some
       respondents consider that production assets and manufacturing units are not strictly
       necessary if the Purchaser is a rolling stock manufacturer with experience in the
       development of very high-speed technologies and capabilities in engineering,
       manufacturing and testing of very high-speed products.
(1242) The Commission therefore considers that in light of the result of the market
       investigation, the Initial Commitments are not sufficient to alleviate the competitive
       concerns raised in this decision in the market for very high-speed rolling stock at
       EEA and global level. The Notifying Party submitted the Final Commitments to
       address the concerns identified in the market test.
         11.3.2.2. The Mainline Rolling Stock Commitments
(1243) The results of the market investigation support the view that the proposed
       Commitments provide the opportunity for a new player to enter the market for self-
       propelled mainline trains in France and Germany. Several market participants
                                                 255
 ---pagebreak---         expressed interest in acquiring the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business and the
        Talent 3 Divestment Business.972
(1244) The majority of the respondents to the market test generally did not express concerns
        about the viability of the Divestment Businesses or their suitability to address
        competition concerns identified by the Commission, subject to the additional items
        described in further details below.973 However, several respondents, including
        Siemens and Stadler, considered that the scope of the proposed Commitments is
        insufficient to address the competitive concerns or to restore competition in the
        market for self-propelled mainline rolling stock. This is mainly due to insufficient
        capacity of the manufacturing sites and dependencies on other sites of Alstom and
        Bombardier, which would prevent the Purchaser from competing in large scale
        tenders. As regards the platforms, Coradia Polyvalent and Talent 3, these
        competitors considered these platforms to be outdated and not competitive against
        the platforms of the main competitors such as Stadler, Siemens, Hitachi, CAF.974
        These respondents consider that other manufacturing sites or platforms of the Parties
        would be more suitable to address the identified competitive concerns.
(1245) The Commission however also notes that some competitors, including those that
        expressed interest in acquiring the Divestment Businesses, assess the overall scope
        of the divestment as appropriate to allow a rolling stock supplier to enter the market
        for self-propelled mainline trains in France, Germany, Austria975 and, Italy or to
        expand its current activities in these countries. According to a customer: ‘this could
        be an opportunity for a smaller rolling stock supplier to grow and step into new
        markets’.976 Several respondents also consider that, albeit a challenging objective,
        the platforms can also be adapted and homologated in the medium-term for
        operation in neighbouring countries (e.g., Spain).977
(1246) A majority of customers similarly considered that the platforms concerned and the
        manufacturing sites represent a viable business that would enable the Purchaser to
        effectively compete in the market for self-propelled trains in the countries where the
        platforms are currently being operated. Several customers confirmed that the
        platforms are competitive. They expressed the view that the Talent 3 platform is
        ‘very important’ and ‘a competitive product’ for regional/commuter traffic in
        Germany978 and that the Coradia Polyvalent platform is ready for sale in France.979
        Respondents also point out that the Reichshoffen plant is a stand-alone business that
        will enable the Purchaser to manufacture the Coradia Polyvalent platform.980
(1247) As regards the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business and the Talent 3 Divestment
        Business, respondents generally point to the need to clarify the terms and conditions
        of the licences for non-platform specific sub-systems and components and the scope
972 Questionnaire 13 addressed to mainline rolling stock operators and customers (“Q13”), replies to
    questions 47 and 48.
973 Q13, replies to questions 8 and 25.
974 Q13, replies to questions 8 and 25.
975 The results of the market test indicated that homologation is still pending in Austria.
976 Q13, replies to question
977 Q13, replies to questions 8 and 25.
978 Q13, replies to question 25.1.
979 Q13, replies to question 8.1.
980 Q13, replies to question 12.1.
                                                         256
 ---pagebreak---        of transfer of IP rights (whether relevant documentation is included in the transfer)
       ahead of their implementation. Respondents also referred to further items that need
       to be clarified (e.g., better description of the facilities, profile of personnel to be
       transferred, etc.).
(1248) The results of the market test also indicated that for the Divestment Businesses to be
       viable, the Commitments should include the divestiture of assets required to (i)
       upgrade the platforms to intercity speeds981 and (ii) upgrade to alternative energies
       (hydrogen, hybrid and battery)982.
(1249) With regard to the upgrade of the Coradia Polyvalent and Talent 3 platforms (to run
       at speed above 160 km/h), respondents indicated that the Commitments should
       include all necessary assets and documentation in order to carry out the upgrade (and
       related processes, such as homologation).
(1250) With regard to hybrid, hydrogen, or BEMU traction systems, which are not Coradia
       Polyvalent-specific or Talent-3 specific, according to the results of the market
       investigation, the Commitment should include (i) the transfer if IP rights,
       documentation, or prototypes for hybrid, hydrogen, or BEMU traction systems or (ii)
       or a clear commitment to forming a JV with the remedy taker to deliver upon
       SNCF’s demand. Specifically for the Coradia Polyvalent platform, this Commitment
       is required to enable the Purchaser to fulfil existing obligations under the contract
       with SNCF and to ensure the future competitiveness of the Purchaser.
(1251) The results of the market investigation further indicated that the transfer of
       component supply agreements is an important aspect underpinning the future
       viability and competitiveness of the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment and the Talent 3
       Divestment. Respondents indicated that the merged entity’s involvement should go
       beyond mere ‘commercially reasonable efforts’ to obtain the transfer (that is subject
       to third parties’ consent). Alstom should commit to provide a solution in case this
       transfer cannot be obtained (i.e., supply components at cost) because without those
       components the remedy taker will not be able to deliver on the platforms’ backlog.
(1252) Furthermore, the majority of competitors that expressed a view in the market test
       indicated that the transfer of customers’ existing backlog and contracts would enable
       the Purchaser in the short-term to generate profits and establish itself in France,
       Germany and Austria. However, since the transfer of existing contracts is subject to
       customers’ consent, a majority of respondents indicated that an alternative solution
       should be provided in case customers refuse to grant consent for the contract
       transfer. The Commission notes, based on the results of the market test, that the
       successful transfer is likely to depend on the reputation of the Purchaser.983
(1253) Competitors that responded to the market test, including those that have expressed
       interest, indicated several items that would need to be included in the Commitments
       in order to ensure that the Purchaser can compete with the merged entity on a stand-
       alone basis (e.g., homologation files, testing systems, software systems). The
       Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business and Talent 3 Divestment Business should
981 Q13, replies to questions 11 and 28.
982 Q13, replies to questions 8.1, 9.1, 12.1, 20.1, 21, 25.1.
983 Q13, replies to questions 16 and 30.
                                                            257
 ---pagebreak---        include all systems and documentation needed for manufacturing or testing the
       platform, and not only for final assembly. With regard to TCMS, the Commitments
       should include more than the application software but all necessary software
       required to build, test, operate, maintain or upgrade the Coradia Polyvalent and
       Talent 3 platforms.984
(1254) Furthermore, the Coradia Polyvalent and the Talent 3 Commitments exclude from
       the scope of the Divestment Businesses certain sub-systems and components that are
       not specific to the platforms (TCMS, bogies, car body shell, traction system sub-
       components, and software). Respondents indicated that this is because the divested
       sites depend on other Alstom and Bombardier facilities for the manufacture and
       delivery of those elements.
(1255) The Initial Commitments provide that Alstom will enter into supply agreements with
       the remedy taker for these elements. Respondents to the market investigation,
       including potential remedy takers, expressed the view that to ensure the viability and
       competitiveness of the Divestment Businesses, the Commitments should include an
       obligation on the merged entity to enter into long term supply agreements. Such
       supply agreements should be under terms equivalent to Alstom’s internal pricing, in
       order to enable the remedy taker to both deliver under the existing backlog and
       compete for future contracts. According to the results of the market test, the
       Monitoring Trustee should oversee the terms and conditions of the supply
       agreements and their implementation.
(1256) As concerns the Henningsdorf Carve-Out Area, respondents considered that the
       optional measures, including the commitment of the merged entity to equip the area
       with all necessary machinery to manufacture the Talent 3 platform and to act as a
       sub-contractor to the Purchaser during a transitional period are necessary to ensure
       the viability of the Talent 3 Divestment Business.985 Access to specific parts of the
       Henningsdorf plant such as track access on fair and non-discriminatory terms is also
       indicated as a critical element to ensure the viability and competitiveness of the
       Divestment Business.986
(1257) Respondents to the market test also indicated that the identity of the Purchaser is
       important for the viability and competitiveness of the Divestment Business. A
       suitable Purchaser should be a rolling stock player with a presence and a proven
       track record in the EEA and a “solid understanding” of the specificities in the EEA
       regarding “technology, regulatory matters, and sales complexity”.987 In addition to
       being an established player in the EEA, the Purchaser should have the capacity not
       only to operate and exploit the acquired assets but also to further develop and
       improve key components.988
(1258) The Commission therefore considers that in light of the result of the market
       investigation, the Initial Commitments are not sufficient to alleviate the competitive
       concerns raised in this decision in the market for self-propelled mainline rolling
       stock (and possible segmentation) in France and Germany. The Notifying Party
984 Q13, replies to questions 17-24 and 36-40.
985 Q13, replies to questions 33-34.
986 Q13, replies to question 39.
987 Q13, replies to question 45.1.1.
988 Q13, replies to question 45.1.1.
                                               258
 ---pagebreak---         submitted the Final Commitments to address the concerns identified in the market
        test.
          11.3.2.3. The OBU Commitments
(1259) The general view held by most respondents to the market test is that access to
        Bombardier’s STMs/legacy systems and TCMS would be essential to ensure
        competition in the ECTS OBUs projects market in the EEA. However, amendments
        appear needed to clarify the scope of the OBU Commitments and to ensure that
        access conditions for any supplier are fair and non-discriminatory for a sufficient
        period of time. In particular, references to timely interventions and fair and
        reasonable terms were considered too vague and could frustrate the implementation
        of the remedies. Moreover, a series of exceptions and reservations about the
        applicability of the commitments generated uncertainty in relation to the actual scope
        of application of the remedies. Furthermore, the required support for authorization
        and homologation was not defined and the commercial conditions in the supply
        agreements were unclear. Hitachi submitted that the competition concerns raised by
        the Transaction in the signalling markets would be better remedied by the divestment
        of one of the merging parties’ business lines.989
(1260) The CMA submitted that the OBU Commitments suffer from specification,
        circumvention and enforcement risks that would undermine their effectiveness, as it
        appeared to lack details and leave scope for interpretation. Furthermore, the CMA
        indicated that the scope of the proposed access remedy should include the UK, even
        after the end of transition period for the UK’s exit from the EU.990
(1261) Whilst the majority of the respondents to the market test confirmed that the
        provisions of the OBU Commitments are sufficiently clear to form a view as to their
        content,991 the majority considered that they are not sufficiently clear to allow their
        effective implementation and to reduce to the minimum the risks linked to their
        implementation, in particular because of the use of indefinite and vague terms and
        the inclusion of relevant exceptions and reservations.992
(1262) Most respondents submitted that the definitions included in the OBU Commitments
        are appropriate.993 Thales submitted that it would be important to have a broad
        definition of Interoperability Documentation and clarifications on the meaning of
        ‘reasonable technical support for integration’ of STMs.994 SBB submitted that the
        definition of ‘Class B’ was restricted to products pre-dating ETCS, which could lead
        to relevant Class B systems being excluded; moreover, the definition of
        Interoperability Documentation did appear not sufficient and failed to cover relevant
        parts like certificates, safety case etc.995 Deutsche Bahn submitted that the definition
        of ‘Purchasers’ should be extended to train operating companies and other train
        owners, as they might carry out certain replacement/retrofit activities themselves and
        might need access to interoperability documentation for the preparation and
989 Hitachi submission of 2 July 2020, page 32.
990 CMA submission of 17 July 2020.
991 Questionnaire 15 addressed to signalling operators (“Q15”), replies to questions 4, 7 and 10.
992 Q15, replies to questions 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12.
993 Q15, replies to question 13.
994 Thales’ response to Q15, question 13.1.
995 SBB’s response to Q15, question 13.1.
                                                         259
 ---pagebreak---           implementation of their procurement procedures.996 Stadler similarly submitted that
          Purchasers were defined too restrictively as the entity supplying the OBU is not
          necessarily the entity performing the retrofit and hence requiring the TCMS
          adaptations. Moreover, Class B products are required also for non-ETCS projects
          (i.e., rolling stock that does not require an ETCS OBU). This kind of projects, in
          which no ETCS OBU supplier is involved, would not qualify for the OBU
          Commitments. The entitled beneficiaries, should thus include any party interested in
          a rolling stock or ETCS retrofit project.997 Siemens submitted that the definition of
          Purchasers should include vehicle manufacturers or vehicle integrators as well as
          anyone who has to integrate an STM or Class B-System into a new or existing
          vehicle. Moreover, Interface Documentation should at least include all existing
          information in latest status as well as certification and/or homologation documents.
          Siemens also listed a series of items that should be included in the Interoperability
          Documentation.998
          (A)        The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments
(1263) Almost half of the respondents submitted that the exclusion of Alstom’s STMs and
          Class Bs from the OBU Commitments is inappropriate.999 Stadler submitted that the
          merged entity will have access to a nearly complete portfolio of European Class B
          systems, by complementing the systems of Alstom and Bombardier. Thereby, the
          ability and the incentive to profitably engage in an anti-competitive tying and/or
          bundling strategy to foreclose its competitors will increase.1000 Deutsche Banh
          submitted that also legacy systems PZB/LZB (in use in Germany) should be covered
          by the obligation in question.1001
(1264) Close to half of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that the offer
          by Alstom of (i) a supply agreement for STMs for both retrofit projects and new
          rolling stock and (ii) a supply agreement for available Class Bs, including necessary
          documentation and reasonable technical support to help integration with ETCS OBU
          or rolling stock was adequate to ensure access to Bombardier’s legacy on-board
          signalling systems, for ETCS OBUs suppliers.1002 However, a series of respondents
          submitted that the provision needed improvements. ERFA, the European Rail
          Freight Association, submitted that the commitment was too vague, as it is not clear
          what is meant by the provision of ‘reasonable technical support’, in particular for
          countries (such as Portugal) where Bombardier no longer supplies the legacy ATP
          system (Convel) for new trains and therefore this formula could mean no support at
          all.1003 Thales also focused on the lack of clear definition of reasonable technical
996  Deutsche Bahn’s submission of 21 July 2020.
997  Stadler’s response to Q15, question 13.1.
998 Siemens’s response to Q15, question 13.1.
999 Q15, replies to question 14.
1000 Stadler’s response to Q15, question 14.1.
1001 Deutsche Bahn’s submission of 21 July 2020.
1002 Q15, replies to question 15.
1003 ERFA – European Rail Freight Association’s response to Q15, question 15.1. See also ERFA’s
      submission of 26 June 2020. Regarding Portugal, further intervention was requested by Medway and the
      Portuguese infrastructure manager considering the current situation of obsolescence of Bombardier’s
      legacy system (Convel) (Medway’s response to Q15, in particular questions 15.1 and 36 and
      Infraestructuras de Portugal response to Q15, in particular questions 15.1, 16.1 and 36, including a
      position paper).
                                                        260
 ---pagebreak---          support and on the necessary inclusion of specific items in the documentation.1004
         Stadler submitted that it would be necessary to have access to the proprietary
         information and specifications to put a third-party supplier into a position to develop
         its own Class B OBUs. This would be particularly important for countries where
         Class B/STMs would be required for a long time and where they are particularly
         inaccessible for a third party, i.e., where these technologies are particularly complex
         and their knowledge is proprietary to Alstom/Bombardier (in particular France,
         Portugal, Netherlands and Finland).1005
(1265) The majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that the
         provisions regarding obsolescence of the STMs were inadequate to ensure the
         effectiveness of the STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments.1006 Thales submitted
         that treatment of the obsolescence should be, as it is usually the case, the
         responsibility of the original supplier. Alstom, being the incumbent supplier, should
         therefore negotiate the obsolescence treatment with the customer.1007 Stadler asked
         for an alternative mechanisms, such as sharing of all relevant knowhow, so that other
         players could develop a new product, and the inclusion of future OBUs developed by
         Alstom in the Commitments.1008 The Portuguese Infrastructure Manager submitted
         that the provisions on obsolescence risk increasing the current problem in Portugal,
         where the technology is exclusively supplied by Bombardier and have a high degree
         of obsolescence.1009
(1266) Similarly, the majority of respondents to the market investigation submitted that the
         provisions relating to (i) Class Bs not manufactured for many years; and (ii)
         termination of production of STMs/Class Bs, are not adequate to ensure availability
         of the relevant products, pointing to the discretion left to Alstom in such cases.1010
         SNCB submitted that such solutions might be very expensive, even at market rates
         and it would therefore be difficult to ensure that the quotation would be reasonable
         and interesting and not leading to extensive discussions. 1011 Thales submitted that
         the relevant pricing should be cost-based. 1012 Siemens submitted that Alstom could
         be induced to cease the production of certain STMs/Class Bs, in which case Alstom
         would be released from its obligation to supply these STMs/Class Bs after the last
         buy order notice. Purchasers should be granted an option to veto the discontinuation
         of production if future demand for the relevant STMs/Class Bs can be
         demonstrated.1013
(1267) The vast majority of the respondents to the market investigation also submitted that
         the exclusion of STMs integrated in ETCS OBUs from the scope of the
         commitments would not be justified.1014 Progress Rail submitted that this provision
1004 Thales’ response to Q15, question 15.1.
1005 Stadler’s response to Q15, question 15.1.
1006 Q15, replies to question 16.
1007 Thales’ response to Q15, question 16.1.
1008 Stadler’s response to Q15, question 16.1.
1009 Portuguese Infrastructure Manager’s (Infraestructuras de Portugal) position paper submitted on 24 July
     2020.
1010 Q15, replies to questions 17 and 18.
1011 SNCB’s response to Q15, question 17.1.
1012 Thales’ response to Q15, question 17.1.
1013 Siemens’ response to Q15, question 18.1.
1014 Q15, replies to question 19.
                                                        261
 ---pagebreak---          could limits the competition for the relevant projects. Alstom should also put at the
         disposal of other competitors or customers STMs where they are an integrated
         product, otherwise other players will not be able to compete in the relevant
         projects.1015
(1268) The majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that the
         provision regarding pricing of Interface Documentation, supply of Class Bs, STMs,
         and services based on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms were not
         sufficiently clear.1016 Thales submitted that in principle, the pricing formula appeared
         clear but that, in order to avoid misunderstandings and ensure clarity, the
         Commitments should include an annex with prices as of the effective date of the
         commitment, to be communicated to the Purchaser at the moment of the quotation.
         Moreover, certain products and services should be cost-based.1017 Stadler submitted
         that there is currently no market for most of OBUs because Bombardier or Alstom
         are the monopoly suppliers. Suggested alternative mechanisms to reduce competitive
         concerns include a fixed pricing for the standardized Class B/STM products (based
         on actually incurred costs), or a cost-plus approach (also based on actually incurred
         costs) when fixed prices are not applicable.1018 Similarly, Siemens submitted that the
         chosen approach, in a sector where no recent benchmark is available, was vague and
         insufficient to effectively circumscribe the quoted price. It suggested that a formula
         should be defined and each of the listed elements would have to be capped.1019
(1269) The majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that the terms
         offered by Alstom to provide quotations for deliveries relating to specific projects or
         requirements related to STMs/Class B systems and to provide additional information
         are neither adequate nor in line with the commercial practice in the sector.1020
         However, some participants submitted that the terms are rather standard.1021 In
         general, it was observed that some details regarding the necessary information and
         additional services would be missing.
(1270) Finally, the majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that a
         twelve year duration would not be sufficient, in particular in view of the 2050 time
         limit in the EU ERTMS implementation plan. A term of at least 20 years was
         suggested as more appropriate.1022
         (B)        The TCMS Commitments
(1271) The majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that Alstom’s
         commitment to offer, to any Purchaser, (i) Interoperability Documentation to
         connect Bombardier’s TCMS and ETCS OBU of the Purchaser, on FRAND terms;
         and (ii) technical support to implement the interfaces with the said TCMS would not
1015 Progress Rail’s response to Q15, question 19.1.
1016 Q15, replies to question 20.
1017 Thales’ response to Q15, question 20.1.
1018 Stadler’s response to Q15, question 20.1. See also the Portuguese Infrastructure Manager’s submission of
     24 July 2020.
1019 Siemens’ response to Q15, question 20.1.
1020 Q15, replies to question 21.
1021 SNCB’s and Thales’ response to Q15, question 21.1.
1022 Q15, replies to question 22.
                                                          262
 ---pagebreak---          be adequate to ensure access to Bombardier’s TCMS, for ETCS OBUs suppliers.1023
         Thales submitted that in case of any doubts on quality of documentation, the
         purchaser should be allowed to escalate it to the Monitoring Trustee, which should
         work with some experts to evaluate these documents. Alternatively, the Monitoring
         Trustee should have some technical expertise on the railway industry.1024 SBB
         submitted that the TCSM adaptations Alstom commits to provide technical support
         for do not cover the usually necessary modifications.1025 Stadler submitted that the
         Commitments should ensure that ‘Bombardier Rolling Stock’ would not be
         interpreted in a restrictive sense and it should include all rolling stock that
         Bombardier supplied in a consortium and for which the knowledge and
         documentation is now acquired by Alstom.1026 Siemens submitted that Alstom would
         have to commit to carrying out all work-streams in retrofit projects that only the
         rolling stock OEM could carry out efficiently in practice.1027
(1272) Similarly, the majority of respondents submitted that the time limits within which
         Alstom would provide quotation with regard to Interoperability Documentation or
         technical support for TCMS modifications were inadequate and not in line with the
         commercial practice in the sector.1028 Thales submitted that the standard tender
         response time is, in average, around sixty days and that reasonable timing should not
         exceed half of the tender response time, otherwise the Purchaser would not be able to
         integrate this quotation in the very short bid timeframe. 1029 Siemens submitted that
         the relevant provision would give rise to several loopholes which could undermine
         the TCMS Commitments.1030
(1273) The majority of respondents to the market investigation submitted that the provision
         regarding the completeness of a written request for quotation is proportionate and in
         line with the market practice.1031 Siemens however submitted that the requirements
         for a complete request would be excessive and unclear. The requirement of a
         detailed description of the planning for deliveries would leave room for
         interpretation and this could create a risk that Alstom would not provide any support
         in retrofit projects based on the excuse that a request would be incomplete. 1032 NS
         confirmed that a maximum reaction time of forty working days is too long.1033
(1274) The slight majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that the
         provisions regarding the modalities to provide reasonable technical support/
         consultation with regard to TCMS modifications and homologation were not in line
         with the market practice.1034 Stadler submitted that many TCMS adaptations
         excluded from the commitment were, in fact, standard in retrofit projects, such as,
1023 Q15, replies to question 23.
1024 Thales’ response to Q15, question 23.1.
1025 SBB’s response to Q15, question 23.1.
1026 Stadler’s response to Q15, question 23.1.
1027 Siemens’ response to Q15, question 23.1.
1028 Q15, replies to question 24.
1029 Thales’ response to Q15, question 24.1.
1030 Siemens’ response to Q15, question 24.1.
1031 Q15, replies to question 25.
1032 Siemens’ response to Q15, question 25.1.
1033 NSReizigers’ response to Q15, question 25.1.
1034 Q15, replies to question 26.
                                                    263
 ---pagebreak---          e.g., updates of the TCMS hardware needed for obsolescence reasons or because the
         old hardware is not able to perform the new tasks.1035
(1275) Finally, the majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that a
         twelve year duration would not be sufficient, in particular in view of the 2050 time
         limit in the EU ERTMS implementation plan.1036 SBB submitted that a general roll-
         out of ETCS in Europe would not be finished within twelve years and therefore a
         twelve year duration would be too short.1037 Stadler noted, however, that the next
         twelve years should be sufficient to cover significant parts of the market and gain
         knowledge about the old rolling stock.1038 Similarly, Network Rail submitted that the
         UK Long-Term Deployment Plan for ETCS suggests that the last retrofit activity in
         the country would occur in 2033 and therefore considered that a twelve years
         duration would likely be sufficient based on the current plan.1039
         (C)        The Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments
(1276) Respondents concerned by the Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments did not
         dismiss in principle the adequacy of this remedy to address the competition
         concerns, but were concerned about the remedy’s duration and lack of clarity, in
         particular regarding the commercial conditions of the ‘Dutch Framework
         Agreement’ to be signed between Alstom and ProRail.1040 NS submitted that the
         supply of the Alstom’s class B ATB-NG and/or related interface information should
         also be provided.1041
(1277) The majority of the relevant respondents submitted that the 12-year duration of the
         Commitments is inadequate. They suggest a duration more in line with the
         timeframe for the ERTMS roll-out in the Netherlands, namely at least 20 years.1042
(1278) As for the Dutch Framework Agreement, ProRail in particular agreed in principle
         with the main conditions of the agreement outlined in annex B to the OBU
         Commitments but suggested a series of amendments on various provisions, from the
         Commitment’s duration to the applicable national law, that it considered essential to
         render the agreement acceptable.1043
         (D)        Common provisions
(1279) Almost half of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that the
         provision regarding the obligations by the Purchaser to provide Alstom with all
         required information to undertake the required work and to provide the necessary
         and accurate information were not clear, adequate or in line with the commercial
         practice in the sector.1044 Stadler submitted that the duty to first describe all the
1035 Thales’ response to Q15, question 26.1. See also NS’ response to Q15, question 26.1.
1036 Q15, replies to question 27.
1037 SBB’s response to Q15, question 27.1.
1038 Stadler’s response to Q15, question 27.1.
1039 Network Rail’s response to Q15, question 27.1.
1040 Q15, replies to questions 28, 28.1 and 34.2.
1041 NS’ response to Q15, question 28.1.
1042 Q15, replies to questions 29 and 29.1.
1043 ProRail’s submission of 21 July 2020.
1044 Q15, replies to question 30.
                                                         264
 ---pagebreak---          ETCS specifications and interfaces, as required in the written request, is not
         proportionate. The process should be the opposite, with Alstom providing the
         necessary specifications of the relevant interfaces and the potential purchaser
         responding. Moreover, Alstom should commit to providing a TCMS adaptation that
         creates a standard interface for the TCMS according to the relevant UNISIG
         standards, to which then a third party ETCS OBU could connect.1045
(1280) The vast majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted that the
         provisions regarding the Commitments Relationship Manager were adequate to
         facilitate dealing with requests related to the OBU Commitments. Some respondents
         asked for more clarity on the position and role of this manager.1046
(1281) Similarly, the vast majority of the respondents to the market investigation submitted
         that the provisions of the Commitments regarding the monitoring trustee and the fast
         track dispute resolution were sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of and
         compliance with the Commitments.1047 Thales submitted that the monitoring trustee
         should have some technical background.1048 Siemens submitted that due to the
         critical importance of timing during the bidding procedure and the complex technical
         nature of potential disputes regarding price and implementation, the Commission
         should also appoint an expert to assist the monitoring trustee and to ensure a swift
         resolution of disputes.1049
         (E)        Conclusion
(1282) Overall, the majority of the respondents to the market investigation did not consider
         the OBU Commitments, as drafted, suitable to effectively remove the Commission's
         serious doubts resulting from the Transaction in the market for ETCS OBUs projects
         in the EEA and the market for legacy OBUs in the Netherlands, mainly because of
         their insufficient duration and scope, and lack of clarity. 1050
11.3.3. The Final Commitments
           11.3.3.1. The Very High-Speed Commitments
(1283) The final version of the Very High-Speed Commitments entails several substantial
         improvements by including provisions related to the HS2 issues raised by the
         respondents to the market test.
(1284) Under the final version of the proposed remedies, the commitments in relation to the
         HS2 Project1051 and the supply of very high-speed rolling stock in the UK consist of
         the following.
1045 Stadler’s response to Q15, question 30.1.
1046 Q15, replies to questions 31 and 31.1.
1047 Q15, replies to questions 32, 32.1, 33 and 33.1.
1048 Thales’ response to Q15, question 32.1.
1049 Siemens’ response to Q15, question 32.1.
1050 Q15, replies to question 34.1 and 34.1.1.
1051 The HS2 Project refers to Bombardier’s scope of and interest in its ongoing joint bid (in partnership with
     submission by Bombardier and Hitachi) pursuant to a consortium agreement dated June 5, 2019 in respect
     of the ongoing tender procedure by HS2 for the HS2 tender, and any related IP rights, know-how,
     documentation, personnel, and other tangible design and intangible assets. Should HS2 award the tender
                                                        265
 ---pagebreak--- (1285) First, in order to ensure the continuity of the competitive process of the HS2 tender,
          if the Transaction is completed before the tender is awarded, the Notifying Party
          offers to put in place a mechanism whereby [Confidential details of the objective
          bid-selection mechanism that Alstom commits to put in place if the Transaction
          closes before the HS2 tender is awarded].
(1286) Second, the Very High-Speed Commitments also contain [Confidential information
          on Alstom’s commitments vis-a-vis Hitachi and HS2 that apply in the event that the
          Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the tender].
(1287) Third, if Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the HS2 tender, the Notifying Party
          offers, at the Purchaser’s option, to grant a [Confidential information on the
          licensing of Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer of
          Technology in the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the HS2
          tender]-wide license covering all IP rights and documentation relating to
          Bombardier’s scope for the HS2 Project for use in future very high-speed projects, to
          the extent such IP rights and documentation are not covered by the Very High-Speed
          Commitments. This option could be exercised [Confidential details on the three
          alternative periods/dates when Hitachi can exercise the option for the Licence of
          Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer of Technology] 1052. If
          the option is exercised under (i) or (ii), it also offers to provide engineering support
          (e.g., through training, secondments, etc.) in respect of Bombardier’s scope of the
          HS2 Project for up to […] years following the delivery of the first train to HS2 and
          on commercially reasonable terms.
(1288) Finally, other provisions in the Very High-Speed Commitments remained mainly
          unchanged, with the exception of the Transitional Arrangements which include
          Bombardier’s explicit engagement to continue to carry out all ongoing homologation
          activities for Existing Projects and all requested homologation for ongoing and
          future projects1053 until such projects have been completed.
            11.3.3.2. The Mainline Rolling Stock Commitments
(1289) The Final Commitments consist of a revised version of the Initial Commitments. The
          Final Commitments represent a series of amendments and improvements which
          address the issues raised in the market test regarding the competitiveness and
     to manufacture of 54 very high-speed trains for operation on the UK’s new very high-speed rail network
     between London, Birmingham and Northern England, together with the maintenance of that fleet for a
     minimum period of 12 years; and in any manufacturing, supply, or other agreements that may be entered
     into directly as a result of the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium (or, if awarded after bid being selecting as
     the winning bidder by HS2 (including any options, call-offs or repeat orders to the extent provided for in
     agreements for the initial order of up to 54 very high-speed trains) (the “HS2 Project”).
1052 If the option is exercised at this stage, the closing of the licensing agreement (i.e., making the relevant IP
     available to the Purchaser) will be conditional upon the delivery of the first train to HS2.
1053 Transitional Arrangements will be provided for (i) the exercise of options, calls offs or any follow-on
     orders if the request to supply is issued by Trenitalia or ILSA within […] years of the closing of the
     Transaction; (ii) future very high-speed orders for which Trenitalia (or any consortium in which Trenitalia
     will be the operator) issues a call for tender within […] years of the closing of the Transaction, and (iii)
     any new very high-speed tenders for which the Purchaser has submitted a complete technical and
     commercial bid (with any customer other than Trenitalia or ILSA) based on the Zefiro V300 Platform
     within […] years of the closing of the Transaction.
                                                             266
 ---pagebreak---          viability of the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment and Talent 3 Divestment as described
         in the Initial Commitments.
(1290) In order to ensure that the Purchaser will be able to run a viable business post-
         Transaction, the Notifying Party amended the Initial Commitments and included the
         following conditions.
(1291) First, the Final Commitments provide clarifications on the scope of the IP rights and
         documentation, sub-systems, components and explanation on the profile of the
         personnel to be transferred. They also specify that all homologation documentation
         for the two platforms at train- and subsystem- level form part of the Commitments.
         The Final Commitments will ensure that the combination of (i) the Coradia
         Polyvalent Platform Divestment and the Reichshoffen Plant Divestment and (ii) the
         Talent 3 platform and the Henningdorf Carve-Out Area will allow the Purchaser to
         effectively manufacture, test, and homologate the platforms (and are not limited only
         to final assembly).
(1292) Furthermore, the Final Commitments include engineering facilities and assets,
         (including the necessary computer systems used in the development and
         maintenance), documentation, and personnel.
(1293) Second, with regard to the assets needed to carry out an upgrade to speed above 160
         km/h for the Coradia Polyvalent and the Talent 3 platforms, the Final Commitments
         have been significantly improved.
(1294) For the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment, all designs for the upgrade, including related
         documentation, drawing and calculations for the [Information on Alstom’s R&D
         activities]1054 will be transferred to the Purchaser. The Final Commitments specify
         that the Coradia Polyvalent Plant Divestment and the Reichshoffen Plant Divestment
         include the necessary assets and engineering know-how to autonomously upgrade
         such components and subsystems or procure the necessary upgraded components
         and subsystems from third-party suppliers. At the option of the Purchaser, Alstom
         offers to enter into supply agreements for components and subsystems designed by
         Alstom for the [Information on Alstom’s R&D activities] and to provide engineering
         support for components and subsystems that fall outside the current competencies of
         the Reichshoffen Plant Divestment. In addition, at the option of the Purchaser, the
         Final Commitments include warranty services for the [Information on Alstom’s R&D
         activities].
(1295) For the Talent 3 Divestment, the Final Commitments include similar provisions,
         except for the design of an upgrade to operate at speed above 160 km/h (and
         components and subsystem accordingly) because such an upgrade has not been
         foreseen for the Talent 3 platform.
(1296) Third, the Final Commitments state that if SNCF [Confidential considerations for
         alternative energy].
(1297) Fourth, in relation to the concerns raised in the market test that the transfer of the
         existing customer backlog and third party supply agreements require customers’ and
1054 The preliminary design of the 200 km/h version of the Coradia Polyvalent is called the [Information on
     Alstom’s R&D activities].
                                                       267
 ---pagebreak---         suppliers’ consent, the Final Commitments include the following improvements: (i)
        if component agreements cannot be transferred to the Purchaser, the Parties will
        supply components at cost,1055 and (ii) [Confidential information on contract
        transfer] .
(1298) Fifth, at the option of the Purchaser, the Parties commit to enter into supply
        agreements for components and sub-systems not divested (because they are not
        specific to the Coradia and Talent 3 platforms). Such supply agreements will be for
        the duration of the underlying agreements with customers (transferred as part of the
        existing backlog). For new tenders awarded within five years of the date of the
        Transaction, the merged entity will enter into supply agreements for a duration of
        three years from initial purchase under the relevant supply agreement. The supplies
        will be at cost. The Monitoring Trustee will oversee the terms and conditions of the
        supply agreements and their implementation.
(1299) Sixth, the Talent 3 Divestment, as amended in the Final Commitments, provides at
        the option of the Purchaser testing services together with the possibility to access the
        track infrastructure for the next […] at Bombardier’s internal project cost.
        Furthermore, as indicated by the results of the market test, the Purchaser will have
        the right at any point in time to move trains through the retained Bombardier area at
        Henningsdorf to reach the testing facilities and the public infrastructure. The
        transition period during which Bombardier commits to act as a sub-contractor to the
        Purchaser has been extended from […]. The terms and conditions include (i)
        compliance with the delivery schedules agreed with the customers and (ii)
        commercial terms with Bombardier offering the services at zero margin.
(1300) Seventh, with regard to Purchaser criteria, the Final Commitments include the
        condition that the suitable buyer for the divested rolling stock assets will be
        determined in light of its ‘proven expertise will be assessed in light of experience
        and track record as a supplier of rolling stock in the EEA, as evidenced, inter alia,
        by prior sales and references’.
          11.3.3.3. The OBU Commitments
(1301) The revised OBU Commitments present a series of amendments and improvements
        to address the issues raised by market participants in the market test regarding the
        Initial Commitments.
(1302) First, in order to limit Alstom’s discretion and reduce uncertainty, all services and
        products offered under the OBU Commitments (other than the provision of
        documentation for which fixed fees are provided) will be priced on a cost-plus basis.
(1303) Second, the definitions contained in the OBU Commitments have been clarified in
        order to limit issues of interpretation. In particular:
        (a)      The definition of Class B standalone on-board equipment is amended to
                 include all systems in use in the EEA other than ETCS (and not only those
                 pre-dating ETCS);
1055 The Notifying Party commits to support the Purchaser in the negotiations with third parties.
                                                        268
 ---pagebreak---        (b)      the definition of Purchaser is amended in order to include not only ETCS
                OBU suppliers but also other suppliers responsible for the execution of an
                ETCS OBU project, such as vehicle manufacturers or vehicle integrators;
       (c)      the definition of Interoperability Documentation is amended in order to
                include all existing documentation necessary to interface a Purchaser’s ETCS
                system with Bombardier’s TCMS. Homologation certificates and safety case
                are expressly included;
       (d)      the definition of Interface Documentation is detailed with a non-exhaustive
                list of documents that would be made available.
(1304) The following sections examine more specifically the amendments to each of the
       three sets of commitments included in the OBU Commitments.
       (A)        The STM and Class B OBUs Commitments
(1305) The geographic scope is extended to […]. The duration is extended to […].
(1306) The provisions on obsolescence are substantially reduced: where redesign of an STM
       would be required or in case of renewal due to absence of regular purchase orders,
       Alstom will offer to conduct such redesign provided that it is compensated by the
       infrastructure manager of the relevant country or countries (consistently with their
       legal obligation under EU law) or by a Purchaser on an amortized basis.
(1307) Special provisions are included for Portugal and Finland, [Information on
       Bombardier’s production / process secrets]. In particular for Portugal, Alstom will
       commit to provide available Interface Documentation to ensure that other suppliers
       are placed on a comparable footing if the Portuguese infrastructure manager were to
       issue an open tender for a new legacy OBU solution. Pricing for such documentation
       will be approved by the monitoring trustee and the Commission.
(1308) The exclusion of STMs that are integrated with an ETCS OBU is maintained, but
       limited to those existing at the closing date, in order to avoid circumvention.
(1309) The terms for Alstom to reply to requests for quotations are generally shortened,
       with some exceptions as to protect Alstom from unreasonable requests. It is further
       provided that in case of an incomplete request, Alstom will nevertheless provide an
       initial quotation, to be then confirmed or amended once the request is completed.
(1310) Liquidated damages for late delivery are still limited, but specific performance
       (‘exécution forcée’) will be available in case of non-performance by either party of
       its obligations. Liquidated damages, other than for late delivery, will be agreed in
       line with standard market practice.
(1311) The possibility for Alstom to cease the production of STMs / Class Bs is maintained
       but a general provision on non-circumvention is included, in accordance to which
       Alstom undertakes not to circumvent the Commitments by deliberately ceasing
       production of Bombardier STMs or Class B’s covered by these Commitments
       without offering an alternative.
                                                  269
 ---pagebreak---        (B)        The TCMS Commitments
(1312) The geographic scope is extended to […]. It is further clarified that the
       Commitments will apply also to rolling stock supplied in consortium where
       Bombardier supplied the TCMS for the relevant trains.
(1313) The TCMS Commitments will be applicable to TCMS supplied by third parties, in
       case the supply of TCMS by the third party was done upon request by Bombardier
       and within the overall responsibility of the vehicle or if the property rights are within
       Bombardier.
(1314) It is clarified that the offer will include sufficient rights to allow the Purchaser to use
       the documents and information for bid preparation and project execution including
       the right to disclose these information and documents to external partners on a need-
       to-know basis for the purpose of preparing a bid and executing the project.
(1315) The deadlines for Alstom to reply to requests for quotations are generally shortened.
       A specific procedure is envisaged for particular, non-standard TCMS modification
       requests.
       (C)        The Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments
(1316) The duration of the remedy is extended to […] including the possibility for ProRail
       to further extend the Dutch Framework Agreement by […] on the same terms at the
       end of the Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments.
(1317) The Dutch Framework Agreement will allow for rolling stock suppliers and/or
       ETCS OBU suppliers authorized by ProRail (‘the Authorised Third Parties’) to place
       orders for Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B at the same pricing and on the same terms as
       agreed with ProRail.
(1318) Under the Dutch Framework Agreement, Alstom will provide Authorized Third
       Parties with Interface Documentation for Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B for a fixed fee
       of EUR […] per cab, adjusted on a yearly basis, as approved by the Monitoring
       Trustee.
(1319) Under the Dutch Framework Agreement, pricing will be agreed between Alstom and
       ProRail, taking as a starting point current existing benchmark pricing for Alstom’s
       ATB-EG Class B sales on a product basis and open book principles and will be
       adjusted on a yearly basis following the revision formula applicable to the supply of
       STMs and Class B OBUs set out in annex A of the OBU Commitments. Authorized
       Third Parties will be entitled to order Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B on the basis of the
       pricing agreed with ProRail and otherwise subject to the principal terms of the Dutch
       Framework Agreement.
(1320) The same pricing terms, as set out in annex A to the OBU Commitments, regarding
       redesign of STMs due to a major obsolescence shall also apply to the Dutch
       Framework Agreement.
(1321) If redesign of the ATB-EG would be required due to major obsolescence or need to
       renew the industrial file due to absence of regular purchase orders leading to no
       manufacturing having taken place for […], Alstom will offer ProRail, on
       substantially the same terms as those set out in annex A to the OBU Commitments,
                                                    270
 ---pagebreak---         at Alstom’s sole discretion, either to develop a standalone ATB-EG STM or to
        redesign Bombardier’s ATB-EG STM.
(1322) The Dutch Framework Agreement will be governed by Dutch law, as will any
        disputes arising out of or in connection with the Dutch Framework Agreement. It
        will be subject to the fast track dispute resolution procedure applicable to all OBU
        Commitments and the agreements implementing them (described in annexes E and F
        of the OBU Commitments).
        (D)       Common provisions to the OBU Commitments
(1323) A fast track expert dispute resolution mechanism is added, in accordance to which
        the monitoring trustee will appoint potential experts, with qualified experience in the
        sector, which will adjudicate disputes related to the OBU Commitments with a fast
        procedure.
(1324) Moreover, the monitoring trustee will have the possibility to review at any moment
        the principal terms of supply outlined in the OBU Commitments to verify in
        particular whether (i) fixed prices for documentation are reasonable justified and in
        line with market practice in the industry, (ii) other prices are based on the actually
        incurred costs for the provision of the requested services/products and (iii) net
        margins are calculated in line with market practice in the industry.
11.4. The Commission’s assessment
11.4.1. Assessment of the Final Commitments
(1325) The Commission considers that the Final Commitments are sufficient to remove the
        serious doubts regarding the compatibility of the Transaction with the internal
        market outlined in sections 6.2, 6.3, 8.2.2 and 8.3.1.2.
          11.4.1.1. The Very High-Speed Commitments
        (A)       Suitable Purchaser
(1326) As a preliminary condition, the Commission considers that Hitachi is the only
        suitable remedy-taker for the Very High-Speed Commitments.
(1327) The Very High-Speed Commitments aims at making a credible competitive
        alternative to the merged entity in the market for very high-speed rolling stock, on
        the basis of the divestiture of Bombardier’s scope of work and assets related to the
        very high-speed platform Zefiro V300.
(1328) In that regard, Hitachi is the only remedy taker that would allow to set up a credible
        standalone competitor on the basis of the Zefiro V300 and create satisfactory
        competitive conditions in the market for very high-speed rolling stock for the
        following reasons.
(1329) First, as expressed by some respondents to the market test, Hitachi is the only
        supplier who has the technical and commercial knowledge of the Zefiro V300
        platform.
                                                  271
 ---pagebreak--- (1330) Hitachi is Bombardier’s partner in the development and manufacture of the Zefiro
         V300 platform at the outset. Bombardier and Hitachi’s consortium has been
         established in the context of the 2010 Trenitalia tender. More recently, they also
         jointly participated in the 2018 ILSA/Trenitalia project. As explained above in this
         decision, Hitachi’s contribution related to the 2010 Trenitalia project and the 2018
         ILSA project accounts for c. […]% of the scope of the platform, and c. […]% of the
         context of the ongoing HS2 tender.1056 In addition, Hitachi and Bombardier
         presented a common bid in the ongoing HS2 tender, with a revised version of the
         platform. Therefore, Hitachi is the leading partner in the consortium with
         Bombardier, and its contribution includes fundamental aspects of the platform
         supply such as the customer relationship, the final assembly, the delivery, and the
         contract and project management. As a consequence, considering Hitachi’s
         involvement in the Zefiro V300 and its revised version presented in the HS2 tender,
         no other supplier but Hitachi has a comparable knowledge and know-how of the
         development, production and commercialisation processes of the platform.
(1331) Following Hitachi’s knowledge of the platform, the Commission further considers
         that making Hitachi as remedy taker of the Very High-Speed Commitments would
         allow a more efficient and prompt implementation of the remedy.
(1332) Second, the Commission considers that Hitachi is the supplier with the strongest
         incentives to further develop and operate the Zefiro V300 platform and its revised
         version in the UK.
(1333) The Zefiro V300 is the only very high-speed platform currently operated by Hitachi
         in the EEA. Based on Hitachi’s contribution in the technical development and the
         manufacture of the platform, the company spent considerable investments in the
         platform for the past 10 years. The Commission notes that Hitachi’s investments in
         the platform should not decrease in a foreseeable future. The Zefiro V300 holds a
         very strong track-record in the EEA, representing a [20-30]% market share in the
         past 10 years. Furthermore, the ILSA project, where ILSA’ shareholder Trenitalia
         selected the Zefiro V300 as its operating platform in Spain, further demonstrates that
         the Zefiro V300 remains a highly competitive platform and a commercially attractive
         supply alternative, especially in the context of liberalized very high-seep markets in
         the EEA. Thus, for instance, the platform is key to Trenitalia’s development strategy
         in Europe. In addition, the Hitachi/Bombardier’s bid in the ongoing HS2 tender
         shows that Hitachi intends to continue investing in the platform.
(1334) Third, the Commission notes that Hitachi is the unique supplier with whom
         Bombardier and the Notifying Party had contacts in relation to the Very High-Speed
         Commitments. In that regard, the Commission notes that Hitachi has expressed its
         interest in being the remedy taker and that the discussion between the Parties and
         Hitachi are well advanced. [Confidential details on ongoing sale negotiations
         between the Parties and Hitachi].
(1335) It follows from the above that the Commission considers that Hitachi is the only
         suitable remedy taker with respect to the Very High-Speed Commitments. The
         proposed remedies would allow Hitachi to become a credible bidder and supplier of
         very high-speed rolling on a standalone basis, concerning the ongoing as well as
1056 Including rolling stock and maintenance.
                                                  272
 ---pagebreak---           future projects. It would also ensure business and development continuity for
          Trenitalia.
(1336) As a result, the Commission considers that the proposed remedies allow to dismiss
          the competitive concerns identified in the market for very high-speed rolling stock at
          EEA and worldwide level if Hitachi is selected as Purchaser.
          (B)       The restoration of competitive conditions
(1337) The Commission considers that the Very High-Speed Commitments will allow to set
          up sufficient competitive conditions in the market for very high-speed in the EEA
          (including Switzerland) and at global level.
(1338) The implementation of the Very High-Speed Commitments would remove the
          overlap between the Parties activities in very high-speed rolling stock, both at EEA
          (including Switzerland) and worldwide level. By providing Hitachi with the
          necessary assets and rights in relation to Bombardier’s scope of work for the Zefiro
          V300 platform, the proposed remedies will ensure Hitachi’s ability to compete on a
          standalone basis with a platform representing [20-30]% of the market at EEA level
          (including Switzerland) and [10-20]% at global level (outside Japan, China and
          South Korea). Hitachi will thus become the second most important supplier in the
          market for very high-speed rolling stock, behind the merger entity, whose market
          share will remain the same as Alstom’s market share prior to the Transaction.
(1339) With respect to its technical scope of the proposed remedies, the Commission
          considers that the final version of the Very High-Speed Commitments will allow
          Hitachi to obtain the necessary assets, IP rights and documentation to become a
          standalone supplier for very high-speed rolling stock on a perpetual basis. It also
          address the issues raised by market participants during the market test.
(1340) In that regard, the Commission notes that the Very High-Speed Commitments
          includes necessary assets to allow Hitachi to operate on a standalone and perpetual
          basis in the market for very high-speed rolling stock.
(1341) The final version of the proposed remedies indeed includes the transfer of all Zefiro
          V300-specific IP rights and documentation relating to Bombardier’s scope for the
          Existing Projects and grants access to non-Zefiro V300-specific IP and
          documentation, through a non-exclusive, irrevocable, and perpetual license. It also
          includes the transfer, at the option of the Purchaser and subject to any applicable
          consent rights of such suppliers, of the supply agreements with external suppliers for
          main components or services for Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro V300.
(1342) In addition, the Very High-Speed Commitments ensure the economic viability of the
          Zefiro V300 platform, by transferring Bombardier’s interest in any contracts,
          options, call-offs or follow-on orders (including orders not yet exercised) with
          existing customers, i.e., Trenitalia and ILSA.1057
1057  In that regard, the Notifying Party notes that, as indicated in the Form RM, confirmed existing order
     backlogs in relation to the Bombardier’s scope for the Trenitalia project amount to more than EUR […]
     for rolling stock delivery and almost EUR […] for maintenance services. It is also expected that the
     consortium Hitachi/Bombardier will be awarded with the ILSA project for the supply of 23 Zefiro V300
                                                          273
 ---pagebreak--- (1343) The final version of the proposed remedies also allows the Purchaser to obtain
        operational assets which may be important for a suitable manufacture and operation
        of the Zefiro V300 platform.
(1344) The Notifying Party offers, at the Purchaser’s option, the sale or lease of Vado
        Ligure facility, including engineering, production, and aftermarket services
        capabilities. In that regard, the Commission considers that, contrary to the claims of
        certain market participants, there is no ground for dismissing the suitability of the
        Vado Ligure plant. The Notitfying Party offers to take charge of significant changes
        in the current site in order to allow the assembly of the Zefiro V300 bogies and
        wheelsets and the testing of very high-speed rolling stock. In addition, the
        Commission notes that some respondents consider that the sale or lease of the Vado
        Ligure site may not be necessary, depending on the Purchaser’s current industrial
        footprint and capacities.
(1345) The Notifying Party also offers to transfer other assets, including employees, the
        Zefiro brand (subject to a license back for the Zefiro Express), its current stock of
        components and spare parts and a non-exclusive license for its train maintenance
        diagnostic software tools limited to V300 Zefiro applications.
(1346) With respect to the implementation of the Very High-Speed Commitments, the
        Notifying Party offers to put in place Transitional Arrangements, whereby the
        merged entity will be entitled to perform its current supply obligations for all
        Existing Projects in order to ensure a seamless transition until Hitachi becomes a full
        standalone supplier. The Transitional Arrangements [Confidential details on the
        specific services covered by and the duration of such transitional arrangements]. In
        addition, the Notifying Party provided in the final version of the remedy further
        clarity on the homologation process. The Very High-Speed Commitments now
        explicitly state that the Notifying Party will continue to carry out all ongoing
        homologation activities for Existing Projects and all requested homologation for
        future projects occurring during the transitional period.
(1347) In addition, the Transitional Arrangements will also apply for future projects and
        orders as they will include (i) any options, calls offs or any follow-on orders if the
        request to supply is issued by Trenitalia or ILSA within […] years of the closing of
        the divestment; (ii) future very high speed orders for which Trenitalia (or any
        consortium with Trenitalia) issues a call for tender within […] years of the closing of
        the divestment, and (iii) any new very high speed tenders for which the Purchaser
        has submitted a complete technical and commercial bid (with any customer other
        than Trenitalia or ILSA) based on the Zefiro V300 Platform within […] years of the
        closing of the divestment to. The Commission considers that the duration of these
        provision, which have been agreed between the Parties and Hitachi in the MoU, are
        sufficient to allow Hitachi to get the necessary knowledge related to the transferred
        and licenced assets, IP rights and documentation.
   platforms and a […] year maintenance contract, for a total value in relation to the Bombardier’s scope of
   almost EUR […] (EUR […] for the rolling stock delivery and €[…] for the maintenance contract).
   Furthermore, the Notifying Party indicates that a delivery of […] Zefiro V300 platforms valued at EUR
   […] in relation to Bombardier’s scope and an expected […] year contract maintenance contract valued at
   EUR […] in relation to Bombardier’s scope is currently under negotiation between Bombardier, Hitachi
   and Trenitalia.
                                                       274
 ---pagebreak--- (1348) Furthermore, the final version of the proposed remedies provides commitments with
        respect to the HS2 Project.
(1349) As explained at paragraph (1231), the Commission notes that Hitachi, the CMA and
        ORR submitted in the course of the market test that the initial remedy failed to
        preserve the competitive condition of the ongoing HS2 tender. They consider that
        the most appropriate remedy in the context of the HS2 tender would be the
        divestiture of Bombardier’s contribution in the platform to develop in partnership
        with Hitachi, should the consortium Hitachi/Bombardier win the tender.
(1350) However, the Commission considers that the divestiture of all Bombardier’s IP
        rights and documentation related to the very high-speed platform presented by the
        consortium Hitachi/Bombardier in the HS2 tender is not a viable and appropriate
        remedy as it is for the Trenitalia and the ILSA projects.
(1351) Indeed, the Trenitalia project relies on a version of the Zefiro V300 platform already
        developed and in operation in Italy.1058 To the contrary, the technicalities of the
        platform presented by the consortium in the context of the HS2 tender differs
        significantly and its related assets, IP rights and documentation do not fully exist yet.
        As a consequence, a potential divestiture of Bombardier’s contribution to the benefit
        of Hitachi would necessarily entails very limited assets, making Hitachi’s ability to
        develop the platform on a standalone basis unlikely.
(1352) In addition, a divestiture of Bombardier’s scope of work [Confidential details on the
        nature of the commitments in respect of the HS2 tender]. The Commission considers
        that, given their respective timeframe, the Transaction will most likely be closed
        before the HS2 tender is awarded, meaning that the remedy will have to be
        implemented prior to the final result of the HS2 tender. In that context, [Confidential
        details on the nature of the commitments in respect of the HS2 tender].
(1353) Therefore, the final version of the Very High-Speed Commitment ensures the
        continuity of the most possible competitive process in the ongoing HS2 tender and
        provides guarantees concerning Alstom’s contribution in the supply of the platform
        to HS2 in the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the tender. It also
        intends to allow Hitachi to become a standalone supplier of very high-speed rolling
        stock in the UK after the HS2 tender in a foreseeable future. In that regard, the final
        version of the Very High-Speed Commitments addresses the issues raised by market
        participants in relation to the ongoing HS2 Project.
(1354) First, if the Transaction closes before the merger is awarded, [Confidential details of
        the objective bid-selection mechanism that Alstom commits to put in place if the
        Transaction closes before the HS2 tender is awarded].
(1355) Second, the final version of the remedy contains [Confidential information on
        Alstom’s commitments vis-a-vis Hitachi and HS2 that apply in the event that the
        Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the tender].
(1356) Third, the Notifying Party’s proposal to grant a [Confidential information on the
        licensing of Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer of
        Technology in the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the HS2
1058 The platform that will be operated by ILSA is close to the one currently operated by Trenitalia in Italy.
                                                          275
 ---pagebreak---          tender]-wide license covering all IP rights and documentation relating to
         Bombardier’s scope in the HS2 Project for the use of future very high-speed projects
         appears adequate and proportionate. It will ensure Hitachi’s ability to bid on a
         standalone and perpetual basis in future tenders issued by HS2 or other very high-
         speed customers in the UK. In addition, the Commission considers that the non-
         exclusive nature of the license is appropriate, since it will ensure Alstom’s incentives
         to actively invest in the IP rights and related documentation, as the merged entity
         will be able to use these IP-rights for other rolling stock platforms of its portfolio.
         Furthermore, the licence can be activated upon publication of a request for
         qualification for a new very high-speed rolling stock tender in the UK, which will
         allow Hitachi a submit a bid with the guarantee to have access to the necessary IP
         rights and documentation relating to Bombardier’s scope.
(1357) Finally, ORR highlighted that “it is imperative that any commitments that the Parties
         make towards Hitachi would span all of Bombardier’s legacy obligations, and/or
         would enable Hitachi to compete both for future orders and maintenance
         competitions including encompassing all aspects of both IP and maintenance”.1059 In
         respect of maintenance aspects of the HS2 Project, the Very High-Speed
         Commitments provide for the continued availability of production and maintenance
         facilities, resources, technology and expertise of Bombardier Transportation UK
         Limited currently envisaged for use on the HS2 Project. Moreover, the HS2 project
         entails the construction of a new maintenance depot near Birmingham, to be owned
         by HS2. The winning bidder of the HS2 tender will operate the depot for the
         duration of the initial 12-year maintenance contract.1060 At the end of such 12-year
         maintenance contract, HS2 has the option to (i) extend the maintenance contract, or
         (ii) transfer maintenance activities, including access to the depot, to a new provider
         (such as the train operator, or the winning bidder/rolling stock OEM of a subsequent
         phase of the HS2 project). Maintenance arrangements in all future tenders are
         expected to follow the same model whereby HS2 would own, and control access to,
         the necessary maintenance depots.
(1358) In view of the above, the Commission considers that the Very High-Speed
         Commitments are a viable remedy which will ensure competitive condition in the
         market for very high-speed rolling stock after the Transaction. The proposed
         remedies include relevant and necessary assets and licences, which will allow
         Hitachi to become a standalone player in a foreseeable future and able to compete
         with the merged entity.
           11.4.1.2. The Mainline Rolling Stock Commitments
(1359) The Commission considers that the Final Commitments match the geographic scope
         of the competitive concerns in the market for self-propelled mainline rolling stock,
         i.e., France and Germany.
(1360) In line with the approach adopted in Bombardier/ADTranz, the Commission
         considers it appropriate to assess the impact of the Commitments also based on
         market shares excluding consortia. Such an analysis focuses only on the merger-
1059 ORR email submission to the case team of 28 July 2020, point 3.
1060See      hs2inbirmingham.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/washwood-heath-depot/details.       Further
     maintenance depots may be constructed during later phases, which would also be owned by HS2.
                                                        276
 ---pagebreak---         specific overlaps in the Parties’ activities and provides an informative view on the
        reduction of the Parties’ market position in the markets where the Commission raises
        serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Transaction with the internal market. 1061
(1361) If trains jointly sold by the Parties in consortia before the merger are excluded, the
        Final Commitments represent the complete merger-specific overlap in France. In
        Germany, while they do not cover the full overlap, the Final Commitments lower the
        Parties’ market share to below 50% in the overall market for self-propelled trains
        and in the market for regional trains.
(1362) The Commission notes that some respondents to the market test expressed the view
        that the Coradia Polyvalent and Talent 3 platforms and the proposed manufacturing
        sites in France and Germany are not sufficient or capable of addressing the
        competitive concerns raised by the Transaction. As regards the manufacturing sites,
        this is due to the lack of sufficient capacity or dependencies on other manufacturing
        sites of the Parties. These respondents also considered that the platforms offered are
        outdated and different platforms of the Parties would have been more suitable to
        restore competition and allow the Purchaser to compete with the merged entity post-
        Transaction.
(1363) Pursuant to paragraph 85 of the Commission notice on remedies, “the Commission
        will review whether the commitments submitted by the parties are proportionate to
        the competition problem when assessing whether to attach them as conditions or
        obligations to its final decision”. Therefore, when assessing the scope of the
        proposed Commitments, the Commission must observe the principle of
        proportionality and accept Commitments strictly necessary to restore competition in
        the markets concerned. In the present case, the Final Commitments fully remove the
        merger-specific overlap in France. Similarly, in Germany, the Parties’ market shares
        are reduced to below 50% under all plausible segmentations. The Commission thus
        considers that the Final Commitments are proportionate to the competitive concerns
        identified in the market for self-propelled trains (and possible segmentations) and in
        France and Germany.
(1364) As regards the suitability of the Final Commitments, the Commission considers that
        the divestiture of manufacturing sites and platforms in France and Germany is
        suitable to address the competitive concerns consisting in high barriers to entry in
        these countries. In particular, the Final Commitments include two manufacturing
        sites in the countries where the Commission has identified a strong correlation
        between local manufacturing presence and the ability to win contracts. Furthermore,
        barriers to entry are also raised by the complex homologation process in Germany
        and France. The Final Commitments include two homologated platforms that have
        already been sold in these countries. The Coradia Polyvalent platform has been sold
        to SNCF and the Hello Paris consortium and the Talent 3 platform to Abellio,
        Netinera, and SWEG in Germany, ÖBB in Austria, and STA in Italy. The results of
        the market investigation confirmed that the Coradia Polyvalent platform is ready for
        sale in France and customers perceive the Talent 3 platform as competitive and
        important in the market for regional trains in Germany.
1061 Commission decision in case M.2139 - Bombardier/ADTranz (2001), recitals 44 and 50.
                                                     277
 ---pagebreak--- (1365) The Commission thus considers that the Final Commitments would enable a rolling
       stock supplier to effectively enter the market for self-propelled trains in France and
       Germany and to exercise a credible competitive constraint on the merged entity post-
       Transaction.
(1366) As regards the viability of the Commitments and competitiveness of the business to
       be divested, the results of the market investigation indicated that the Initial
       Commitments did not include all assets and know-how to ensure that the Purchaser
       will be able to effectively manufacture, operate, maintain, and further develop the
       Coradia Polyvalent and Talent 3 platforms, or did not provide sufficient information
       in that regard.
(1367) In the Commission’s assessment, the scope of the Final Commitments addresses the
       issues identified in the market test.
(1368) In terms of clarity, the Commission considers that the Final Commitments include
       detailed information regarding the IP rights, documentation to be transferred to the
       Purchaser as well as the profile of the personnel at the Reichshoffen site and the
       Henningsdorf Carve-Out Area.
(1369) The Final Commitments ensure that the combination of (i) the Coradia Polyvalent
       Platform Divestment and the Reichshoffen Plant Divestment and (ii) the Talent 3
       platform and the Henningsdorf Carve-Out Area will allow the Purchaser to
       effectively manufacture, test, and homologate the respective platforms for the
       following reasons.
(1370) First, the Commission notes that the Coradia Ployvalent platform is already being
       manufactured at the Reichshoffen plant, which includes the relevant personnel and
       assets. For components and sub-systems excluded from the scope of the Final
       Commitments, because they are not Coradia Polyvalent-specific or do not fall within
       the scope of the competencies of the Reichshoffen plant, the merged entity commits
       to enter into supply agreements, at the option of the Purchaser. Under the terms and
       conditions of the supply agreements, components and sub-systems will be supplied
       to the Purchaser at Alstom’s internal costs, which ensures that cost of manufacturing
       the Coradia Polyvalent platform will not increase after the Transaction. Furthermore,
       the duration of the supply agreements will match the duration of underlying
       agreements included in the existing backlog and will be sufficiently long for new
       tenders (during a period of […] after closing of the Transaction and for a period of
       […] from the initial order under the awarded contract). This will ensure not only that
       the Purchaser will be able to comply with its contractual obligations for the existing
       backlog but also that it will be able to compete in future tenders.
(1371) Second, the Commission considers that the existing assets at the Henningsdorf
       Carve-Out Area, together with the additional commitments during the transitional
       period, at the option of the Purchaser, will enable the Purchaser to continue to supply
       the Talent 3 platform. In addition to supply agreements identical to those provided
       for the Coradia Polyvalent platform, Bombardier offers to act as sub-contractor
       under conditions ensuring the competitiveness and quality of the platform. In
       response to the results of the market investigation, the transitional period has been
       extended to 36 months and the period for the access to testing tracks ([…] years) is
       considered sufficiently long.
                                                  278
 ---pagebreak--- (1372) Third, with regard to the transfer of the existing backlog and existing supply
       agreements with third party suppliers, the Final Commitments include provisions in
       case third parties (customers and suppliers) do not grant their consent. These
       Commitments are considered sufficient to enable the Purchaser to fulfil its
       obligations under the existing contracts for the supply of rolling stock. This in turn
       will ensure that the Purchaser’s entry in France and Germany will be effective and it
       will be able to establish an installed base.
(1373) Another important aspect of the Final Commitments is the merged entity’s
       commitment if [Confidential considerations for alternative energy]. The
       Commission thus considers that the Final Remedies are designed to ensure that the
       Purchaser will successfully comply with its contractual obligations under the
       existing contract with SNCF.
(1374) Furthermore, the Commission considers that the assets to be transferred as part of the
       Final Commitments, including existing designs, engineering support and supply
       agreements, will enable the Purchaser to upgrade the Coradia Polyvalent and Talent
       3 platforms to carry out an upgrade of the Coradia Polyvalent and Talent 3 platform
       at speed above 160 km/h. As previously indicated, the Coradia Polyvalent and Talent
       3 platforms are currently operating as regional trains, but either already have a built-
       in capacity to run at intercity speeds (Coradia Polyvalent) or [Information on
       Bombardier’s production / process secrets]. The upgrade facilitated by the Final
       Commitments will allow the Purchaser to compete in future tenders also for intercity
       trains (where the Transaction does not lead to overlaps in France and Germany) with
       the Parties’ and their competitors.
(1375) Finally, the Final Commitments impose strict Purchaser criteria which ensure that a
       suitable Purchaser is an established player with a track record of supplying rolling
       stock in Europe. The Commission considers that this will ensure not only the
       viability and competitiveness of the Divestment Businesses but also a timely entry in
       France and Germany that will effectively constraint the merged entity post-
       Transaction.
(1376) In view of the above, the Commission considers that the Final Commitments are
       sufficient to eliminate the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Transaction
       with the internal market identified in the market for self-propelled mainline trains
       (and possible segmentations) in France and Germany.
         11.4.1.3. The OBU Commitments
       (A)       The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments and the TCMS Commitments
(1377) The Commission notes that several competitors expressly requested access to the
       merged entity’s TCMS and/or legacy OBUs, in order to eliminate the risk of rivals’
       foreclosure in the market for ETCS OBU projects:
       (a)     Siemens submitted that offering access to Bombardier’s proprietary interface
               would be to the benefit of train operators as it would allow ETCS OBU
                                                  279
 ---pagebreak---                   providers to compete on a level playing field for retrofitting projects, which
                  results in competitive terms for ETCS OBUs and further components;1062
         (b)      Stadler submitted that any remedy measure shall include access to the
                  merged entity’s installed base of rolling stock in Europe for any signalling
                  retrofit in the foreseeable future: the merged entity should give access to all
                  relevant documentation and interface information required to conduct ETCS
                  and Class B retrofit works. Stadler also submitted that in the absence of a full
                  disposal of the signalling business, access to both ETCS OBU as well as
                  Class B technology for dependent rail OEMs would be requested to allow a
                  minimum level of competition.1063
(1378) The results of the market investigation, summarized in previous section 11.3.2.3,
         confirmed that access to Bombardier’s STMs/Class Bs and TCMS is considered
         critical to ensure competition in the ECTS OBUs projects market in the EEA.
         Therefore, an access remedy as the one proposed by the Notifying Party, if properly
         designed and implemented, appears able to address the competitive concerns
         emerged in the course of the investigation. In this respect, the Commission considers
         that the amendments and the improvements submitted by the Notifying Party
         following the result of the market test are able to address the main issues identified
         by the respondents to the market investigation.
(1379) First of all, the geographic scope of application has been extended to the UK and
         Switzerland, in line with the requests of CMA and of other ETCS suppliers.
(1380) The definition of ‘Purchaser’ has been amended as well, to include all suppliers
         responsible for the execution of an ETCS OBU project, such as vehicle
         manufacturers or vehicle integrators, in order to capture situations where the entity
         supplying the OBU is not the entity performing the work/retrofit and hence requiring
         the TCMS adaptations. Conversely, further broadening the scope of application, in
         order to include other operators in the railway sector, would be disproportionate as
         the competitive concern emerged in the course of the investigation relates to the
         market for ETCS OBUs projects.
(1381) With respect to the STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments the elimination to the
         reference to ATP systems ‘pre-dating’ the ETCS system avoids possible issues in
         case of future releases of legacy systems. The inclusion of Alstom STM/Class B
         systems, as requested by some respondents to the market test, would not be
         proportionate, as it does not relate to the incremental advantage brought about by the
         Transaction.
(1382) The limitation of the exclusion from the scope of the remedy of integrated
         STM/ETCS OBUs to those existing at the closing date is adequate as well, as it
         would avoid a situation where Alstom would reengineer currently available STMs or
         Class B’s as integrated products in an attempt to exclude them from the scope of the
         Commitments. On the other hand, a general inclusion of integrated products would
         not be proportionate, as the purpose of the remedy is to facilitate entry of competing
1062 Siemens’ submission of 21 April 2020, paragraph 88.
1063 Stadler’s submission of 4 May 2020, page 32.
                                                       280
 ---pagebreak---        ETCS OBUs suppliers. For the same reason, the exclusion of certain STM/Class B
       in countries where alternatives are available from competitors appears justified.
(1383) With respect to the TCMS Commitments, it has been further clarified that it will
       apply also to rolling stock supplied in consortium where Bombardier supplied the
       TCMS for the relevant train. Moreover it will apply also to TCMS supplied by third
       parties, in case the supply of TCMS by the third party was done upon request by
       Bombardier and within the overall responsibility of the vehicle or if the property
       rights are within Bombardier. These clarifications should allow the inclusion of all
       cases where Bombardier is substantially responsible for the TCMS, irrespective of
       any different formal role. Similarly to the STM/Class B OBU Commitments, access
       to Alstom’s TCMS would not be proportionate, as it would go beyond merger-
       specific concerns.
(1384) The duration of the Commitments is adequate:
       (a)     The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments will remain in force for […], as
               requested by most respondents to the market test in order to broadly
               correspond to the time limit in the EU ERTMS implementation plan;
       (b)     The TCMS Commitments will remain in force for twelve years. In this
               respect, the Commission considers that this duration appears proportionate:
               although the EU ERTMS implementation plan will not be completed in […],
               it is to be noted that the ETCS OBUs retrofit of old rolling stock should be
               largely completed by 2030, as confirmed also by some respondents to the
               market test.
(1385) The Commission further notes that the Final Commitments have substantially
       limited Alstom’s discretion in the implementation of the OBU Commitments and
       have reduced the vagueness of a series of definitions and concepts. In particular:
       (a)     The definitions of Interoperability Documentation and of Interface
               Documentation have been amended and detailed, with the inclusion of
               specific items indicated by market participants in the course of the market
               test;
       (b)     The references to ‘reasonable’ support or modifications have been largely
               deleted, in order to avoid limiting principles subject to interpretation;
       (c)     All services and products offered (other than the provision of documentation
               for which fixed fees are provided) will be priced on a cost-plus basis. The
               Final Commitments thus do not include references to market prices,
               considered inadequate by most respondents to the market test;
       (d)     For STMs and Class Bs, the provisions on obsolescence have been
               substantially reduced and the provision relating to ceased production has
               been reformulated to limit Alstom’s discretion. In any case a specific
               provision to avoid circumvention of the Commitments is included, in
               accordance to which Alstom would be forced to offer alternatives. A specific
               provision has been included for Finland and Portugal, [Information on
               Bombardier’s production / process secrets]. The Commission notes that for
               Portugal Alstom expressly commits to provide available interface
               documentation for its legacy system at a price approved by the monitoring
                                                  281
 ---pagebreak---                  trustee, to ensure that other suppliers can compete in case of an open tender
                 for a new solution organized by the infrastructure manager;
         (e)     For TCMS, the exclusions have been simplified and clarified;
         (f)     In order to exclude possible delaying tactics, Alstom would be obliged to
                 provide a quotation also in case of incomplete requests from ETCS suppliers.
(1386) Most terms for Alstom to reply to request for quotations are shortened, again in line
         with the results of the market test, with some exceptions aimed at protecting Alstom
         from unreasonable requests. Similarly, the provisions on damages have been aligned
         with the market practice. In sum, the Final Commitments impose no burden on third
         parties liable to impede access compared to what is usual market practice.
(1387) The Commission considers that the procedures for monitoring and dispute resolution
         are clear and consistent with the Commission’s precedents. The Commission notes
         in particular the role of the fast track expert dispute resolution mechanism, which
         would allow a rapid resolution of all disputes with the help of an industry expert,
         before the possible recourse to arbitration. Furthermore, the monitoring trustee, with
         the help of the expert, would be also able to review the main terms and conditions –
         in particular pricing – of the Commitments, thus further limiting Alstom’s discretion
         in determining the conditions applicable to Purchasers.
(1388) The Commission further notes that the divestiture of the entire ETCS OBUs projects
         business, as requested by other market participants, would be (i) neither
         proportionate, as the Transaction does not raise serious doubts with respect to
         horizontal unilateral effects in the ETCS OBUs market, in particular considering
         Bombardier’s limited position in this market (section 8.2.1.1), (ii) nor adequate, as it
         would not solve the issue connected to the availability for the merged entity of an
         enlarged rolling stock installed base and unmatched legacy OBUs portfolio in the
         EEA.
(1389) In summary, the STMs and Class B OBU and the TCMS Commitments, through
         access to STMs / Class B equipment, interfaces, or TCMS interoperability
         documentation or modifications support, provide a level playing field in the market
         for ETCS OBUs projects in the EEA and allow ETCS OBU providers to compete
         more effectively.
(1390) The Commission therefore considers that the STMs and Class B OBUs
         Commitments and the TCMS Commitments are sufficient to eliminate the serious
         doubts as to the compatibility of the Transaction with the internal market identified
         in the market for ETCS OBUs projects in the EEA.
         (B)       The Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments
(1391) The final version of the Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments covers the issues
         raised during the market test, as described in paragraphs (1276) to (1278) above.1064
         In particular:
1064  Regarding the concern raised during the market test about access to the ATB-NG system in the
     Netherlands, even though not strictly merger-specific, it was already taken into account in the Initial
                                                       282
 ---pagebreak---        (a)     The duration of the commitments has been extended to […], offering the
               possibility to ProRail to request a further extension of […] on the same terms.
               This is in line with the timeframe for the roll-out of the ERTMS in the
               Netherlands;
       (b)     The Dutch Framework Agreement will largely include the amendments
               requested by ProRail, notably on duration and pricing.
(1392) Furthermore, all relevant amendments to the common provisions of the OBU
       Commitments equally apply here. These include clarifications of relevant definitions
       and amendments to the fast track dispute resolution and the pricing in case of
       redesign of STMs due to a major obsolescence.
(1393) Moreover, while the Commission recognises that divestiture commitments are
       generally the best way to eliminate competition concerns resulting from horizontal
       overlaps, it considers that a divestiture would not be the optimal solution in the
       specific circumstances of the present case and could be difficult to implement. A
       divestiture of Alstom’s or Bombardier’s legacy OBU business in the Netherlands
       would risk not attracting suitably buyers, as these assets correspond to a
       disappearing market in view of the ERTMS roll-out.
(1394) In summary, these commitments will limit the merged entity’s market power in the
       market for legacy OBU products in the Netherlands and allow ETCS suppliers and
       rolling stock competitors in the Netherlands to obtain supplies of legacy OBUs at
       fair conditions.
(1395) The Commission therefore considers that the Netherlands Legacy OBU
       Commitments are sufficient to eliminate the serious doubts as to the compatibility of
       the Transaction with the internal market identified in the market for legacy OBUs in
       the Netherlands.
         11.4.1.4. Conclusion
(1396) For the reasons outlined above, the commitments entered into by the undertakings
       concerned are sufficient to eliminate the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the
       transaction with the internal market.
(1397) Under the first sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) of the Merger
       Regulation, the Commission may attach to its decision conditions and obligations
       intended to ensure that the undertakings concerned comply with the commitments
       they have entered vis-à-vis the Commission with a view to rendering the
       concentration compatible with the internal market.
(1398) The fulfilment of the measures that give rise to the structural change of the market is
       a condition, whereas the implementing steps that are necessary to achieve this result
       are generally obligations on the parties. Where a condition is not fulfilled, the
       Commission's decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal
       market is no longer applicable. Where the undertakings concerned commit a breach
       of an obligation, the Commission may revoke the clearance decision in accordance
   Commitments whereby Alstom included its newly developed Class B solution combining ATB EG and
   ATB NG and replacing the obsolete ATB-NG (ATB-NL) in the STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments.
                                                  283
 ---pagebreak---        with Article 6(3) of the Merger Regulation. The undertakings concerned may also be
       subject to fines and periodic penalty payments under Articles 14(2) and 15(1) of the
       Merger Regulation.
(1399) In accordance with the basic distinction between conditions and obligations
       described in the preceding paragraph, the commitments in (i) sections B and C of the
       Rolling Stock Commitments and (ii) section B of the OBU Commitments of the
       Annex constitute conditions attached to this decision, as only through full
       compliance therewith can the structural changes in the relevant markets be achieved.
       The other commitments set out in the Annex constitute obligations, as they concern
       the implementing steps which are necessary to achieve the modifications sought in a
       manner compatible with the internal market.
12.    CONCLUSION
(1400) For the above reasons, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified
       operation as modified by the commitments and to declare it compatible with the
       internal market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, subject to full
       compliance with the conditions in (i) sections B and C of the Rolling Stock
       Commitments and (ii) section B of the OBU Commitments, annexed to the present
       decision and with the obligations contained in the other sections of the said
       commitments. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) in
       conjunction with Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA
       Agreement.
                                                    For the Commission
                                                    (Signed)
                                                    Margrethe VESTAGER
                                                    Executive Vice-President
                                                284
 ---pagebreak---                                                                                 July 30, 2020
                     Case M.9779 – Alstom/Bombardier Transportation
                 COMMITMENTS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
 Pursuant to Article 6(2), of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the Merger
 Regulation), Alstom S.A. (Alstom, or the Notifying Party) hereby enters into the following
 Commitments (the Commitments) vis-à-vis the European Commission (the Commission)
 with a view to rendering its proposed acquisition of sole control over Bombardier
 Transportation (Investment) UK Ltd, the holding entity for Bombardier Transportation
 (Bombardier Transportation and, together with Alstom, the Parties), the global rail
 solutions division of Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier), (the Concentration) compatible with
 the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
 This text shall be interpreted in light of the Commission’s decision pursuant to Article
 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation to declare the Concentration compatible with the internal
 market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (the Decision), in the general
 framework of European Union law, in particular in light of the Merger Regulation, and by
 reference to the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regulation
 (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (the Remedies
 Notice).
 The Commitments shall take effect upon the Effective Date, provided that if the
 completion of the Concentration does not subsequently take place for whatever reason and
 is thereby abandoned, the Notifying Party shall not be bound by these Commitments.
 SECTION A. DEFINITIONS
1.      For the purpose of the Commitments (including the Schedules), the following terms
        shall have the following meaning:
        Affiliated Undertakings: undertakings controlled by the Parties and/or by the
        ultimate parents of the Parties, whereby the notion of control shall be interpreted
        pursuant to Article 3 of the Merger Regulation and in light of the Commission
        Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on
        the control of concentrations between undertakings (the Consolidated Jurisdictional
        Notice).
        Assets: the assets as owned or held by Alstom or Bombardier (and their respective
        Affiliated Undertakings) that contribute to the current operation or are necessary to
        ensure the viability and competitiveness of the Divestment Businesses as described
        in the Schedules.
                                                  1
 ---pagebreak--- Closing: the transfer of the legal title to the Divestment Businesses to the
Purchaser(s).
Closing Period: the period of […] months from the approval of the Purchaser(s) and
the terms of sale by the Commission.
Confidential Information: any business secrets, know-how, commercial
information, or any other information of a proprietary nature that is not in the public
domain.
Conflict of Interest: any conflict of interest that impairs the Trustee’s objectivity
and independence in discharging its duties under the Commitments.
Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business: as defined in Schedule 2.
Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business Hold Separate Manager: the person(s)
appointed by the Notifying Party to manage the day-to-day business of the Coradia
Polyvalent Divestment Business under the supervision of the Monitoring Trustee.
Divestment Businesses: the businesses listed in Section B, and defined in full in
Schedules 1-3 (including, for the avoidance of doubt, those Assets which are offered
at the option of the Purchaser(s)), which the Notifying Party commits to divest,
namely (i) the Very High Speed Divestment Business, and (ii) the Mainline
Divestment Businesses.
Divestiture Trustee: one or more natural or legal person(s) who is/are approved by
the Commission and appointed by the Notifying Party and who has/have received
from the Notifying Party the exclusive Trustee Mandate to sell any of the Divestment
Businesses to one or more Purchasers at no minimum price.
Effective Date: the date of adoption of the Decision.
First Divestiture Period: the period of […] months from the Effective Date.
Hold Separate Manager(s): the person(s) appointed for the Divestment Businesses
to manage the day-to-day business under the supervision of the Monitoring Trustee,
namely (i) the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business Hold Separate Manager, (ii)
the Talent 3 Divestment Business Hold Separate Manager and (iii) and the Zefiro
V300 Divestment Business Hold Separate Manager.
Key Personnel: the relevant personnel employed by Alstom or Bombardier (and
their respective Affiliated Undertakings) necessary to maintain the viability and
competitiveness of each of the Divestment Businesses, as listed in the Schedules,
including the Hold Separate Manager(s) of each of the Divestment Businesses.
                                           2
 ---pagebreak--- Mainline Divestment Businesses: (i) the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business,
and (ii) the Talent 3 Divestment Business.
Monitoring Trustee: one or more natural or legal person(s) who is/are approved by
the Commission and appointed by the Notifying Party, and who has/have the duty to
monitor the Notifying Party’s compliance with the conditions and obligations
attached to the Decision.
Personnel: staff currently employed by Alstom or Bombardier (and their respective
subsidiaries) in connection with the Divestment Businesses, as defined in the
Schedules.
Purchaser(s): the entities approved by the Commission as acquirers of (one or more)
the Divestment Businesses in accordance with the criteria set out in Section D.
Purchaser Criteria: the criteria laid down in paragraph 15 of these Commitments
that the Purchaser(s) must fulfil in order to be approved by the Commission.
Reasonable Best Efforts: in relation to commitments to seek any necessary consents
under customer contracts forming part of the Divestment Businesses, reasonable best
effort obligations shall be interpreted in light of the Commission’s decision pursuant
to Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation to declare the Concentration compatible
with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, the Merger
Regulation and the general principles of EU law, provided that reasonable best
efforts shall not require Bombardier and/or Alstom to assume liability for any project
undertaken by, or any product or service delivered by, the Purchaser(s). Any
interpretation that may be given to this term under the law of other jurisdictions is
not relevant solely for the purpose of interpreting and/or implementing the
Commitments.
Sale and Purchase Agreement: a binding sale and purchase agreement for the sale
of one or more of the Divestment Businesses, or the combination of (i) a binding
offer letter signed by a potential purchaser (including an agreed draft sale and
purchase agreement) for the acquisition of one or more of the Divestment Businesses
and (ii) an exclusivity letter executed by the Notifying Party, the Parties, and/or their
Affiliated Undertakings, granting the Notifying Party, the Parties, and/or their
Affiliated Undertakings an irrevocable option to enter into a sale and purchase
agreement for the sale of one or more of the Divestment Businesses to the potential
purchaser once the opinion of Alstom’s or Bombardier’s (as the case may be)
relevant employee representative bodies has been delivered.
Schedules: the schedules to these Commitments describing more in detail the
Divestment Businesses.
Talent 3 Divestment Business: as defined in Schedule 3.
                                             3
 ---pagebreak---       Talent 3 Divestment Business Hold Separate Manager: the person(s) appointed
      by Bombardier Transportation, after having consulted with and given due
      consideration to the views (if any) of the Notifying Party, to manage the day-to-day
      business of the Talent 3 Divestment Business under the supervision of the
      Monitoring Trustee.
      Trustee(s): the Monitoring Trustee and/or the Divestiture Trustee as the case may be.
      Trustee Divestiture Period: the period of […] months from the end of the First
      Divestiture Period, or from any rejection of a proposed purchaser (provided that the
      Notifying Party has submitted a Purchaser approval request under Section D of these
      Commitments to the Commission during the First Divestiture Period), whichever is
      later.
      Very High Speed Divestment Business: the Zefiro V300 Divestment Business and
      the HS2 VHS Commitment, as defined in Schedule 1.
      Zefiro V300 Divestment Business Hold Separate Manager: the person(s)
      appointed by Bombardier Transportation, after having consulted with and given due
      consideration to the views (if any) of the Notifying Party, to manage the day-to-day
      business of the Zefiro V300 Divestment Business under the supervision of the
      Monitoring Trustee.
 SECTION B. THE COMMITMENTS
      Commitment to divest
2.    In order to maintain effective competition, the Notifying Party commits to divest, or
      procure the divestiture of:
      (a)      the Very High Speed Divestment Business, consisting of the Zefiro
               V300 Divestment Business and the HS2 VHS Divestment Business,
               as defined in Schedule 1, and
      (b)      the Mainline Divestment Businesses, consisting of (i) the Coradia
               Polyvalent Divestment Business, as defined in Schedule 2, and (ii)
               the Talent 3 Divestment Business, as defined in Schedule 3,
      by the end of the Trustee Divestiture Period to one or more Purchaser(s) and on
      terms of sale approved by the Commission in accordance with the procedure
      described in paragraph 15 of these Commitments. To carry out the divestiture, the
      Notifying Party commits to find one or more Purchaser(s) and to enter into Sale and
      Purchase Agreement(s) with each Purchaser for the sale of the Divestment
      Businesses within the First Divestiture Period. If the Notifying Party has not entered
      into such agreement(s) at the end of the First Divestiture Period, the Notifying Party
      shall grant the Divestiture Trustee an exclusive mandate to sell any Divestment
      Businesses that have not been sold in accordance with the procedure described in
      paragraph 28 in the Trustee Divestiture Period.
                                                 4
 ---pagebreak--- 3. The Notifying Party shall be deemed to have complied with these Commitments if:
   (a)      by the end of the Trustee Divestiture Period, the Notifying Party or the
            Divestiture Trustee has entered into Sale and Purchase Agreement(s) and the
            Commission approves the Purchaser(s) and the terms of sale as being
            consistent with the Commitments in accordance with the procedure
            described in paragraph 15; and
   (b)      the Closing of the sale(s) of the Divestment Businesses to the Purchaser(s)
            takes place within the Closing Period.
4. In order to maintain the structural effect of the Commitments, the Notifying Party
   shall, for a period of 10 years after Closing, not acquire, whether directly or
   indirectly, the possibility of exercising influence (as defined in paragraph 43 of the
   Remedies Notice, footnote 3) over the whole or part of the Divestment Businesses,
   unless, following the submission of a reasoned request from the Notifying Party
   showing good cause and accompanied by a report from the Monitoring Trustee (as
   provided in paragraph 57 of these Commitments), the Commission finds that the
   structure of the market has changed to such an extent that the absence of influence
   over the Divestment Businesses is no longer necessary to render the proposed
   concentration compatible with the internal market.
   Structure and definition of the Divestment Businesses
5. The legal and functional structures of the relevant parts of the Divestment Businesses
   are described in Schedules 1-3. Each Divestment Business includes all assets and
   Personnel that are necessary to ensure the viability and competitiveness of such
   Divestment Business, as described in full in Schedules 1-3, and include, as
   applicable:
   (a)      tangible and intangible assets (including intellectual property rights);
   (b)      licences, permits and authorisations issued by any governmental
            organisation for the benefit of such Divestment Business;
   (c)      contracts, leases, commitments and customer orders of such Divestment
            Business;
   (d)      customer, credit and other records of such Divestment Business; and
   (e)      Personnel.
6. In addition, as described in more detail in Schedules 1-3, the Divestment Businesses
   include the benefit of certain arrangements under which the Parties or their Affiliated
   Undertakings will supply products or services to the Divestment Businesses,
   including as set out in the HS2 VHS Commitment. The Monitoring Trustee will
                                               5
 ---pagebreak---       monitor these arrangements for their duration. Strict firewall procedures will be
      adopted so as to ensure that any competitively sensitive information related to, or
      arising from such supply arrangements (for example, product roadmaps) will not be
      shared with, or passed on to, anyone outside the relevant business unit/division of the
      Parties /Combined Entity providing the product/service.
 SECTION C. RELATED COMMITMENTS
      Preservation of viability, marketability and competitiveness
7.    From the Effective Date until Closing, the Parties shall preserve or procure the
      preservation of the economic viability, marketability and competitiveness of the
      Divestment Businesses, in accordance with good business practice, and shall
      minimise as far as possible any risk of loss of competitive potential of the
      Divestment Businesses. In particular the Parties undertake:
      (a)       not to carry out any action that might have a significant adverse impact on
                the value, management or competitiveness of the Divestment Businesses or
                that might alter the nature and scope of activity, or the industrial or
                commercial strategy or the investment policy of the Divestment Businesses;
      (b)       to make available, or procure to make available, sufficient resources for the
                development of the Divestment Businesses, on the basis and continuation of
                the existing business plans;
      (c)       to take all reasonable steps, or procure that all reasonable steps are being
                taken, including appropriate incentive schemes (based on industry practice),
                to encourage all Key Personnel to remain with Divestment Businesses, and
                not to solicit any Personnel to the Parties’ remaining business. Where,
                nevertheless, individual members of the Key Personnel exceptionally leave
                the Divestment Businesses, the Parties shall provide a reasoned proposal to
                replace the person or persons concerned to the Commission and the
                Monitoring Trustee. The Parties must be able to demonstrate to the
                Commission that the replacement is well suited to carry out the functions
                exercised by those individual members of the Key Personnel. The
                replacement shall take place under the supervision of the Monitoring
                Trustee, who shall report to the Commission.
      Hold-separate obligations
8.    The Parties commit, from the Effective Date until Closing, to keep the Divestment
      Businesses separate from the business(es) they are retaining and to ensure that unless
      explicitly permitted under these Commitments: (i) management and staff of the
      business(es) retained by the Parties have no involvement in the Divestment
      Businesses; (ii) the Key Personnel and Personnel of the Divestment Businesses have
                                                  6
 ---pagebreak---     no involvement in any business(es) retained by the Parties and do not report to any
    individual outside the Divestment Businesses.
9.  Until Closing, the Parties shall assist the Monitoring Trustee in ensuring that the
    Divestment Businesses are managed as distinct and saleable entities separate from
    the business(es) which the Parties are retaining. As promptly as practicable after the
    adoption of the Decision, the Parties shall appoint one or more Hold Separate
    Managers. The Hold Separate Manager(s), who shall be part of the Key Personnel,
    shall manage the Divestment Businesses independently and in the best interest of the
    business with a view to ensuring their continued economic viability, marketability
    and competitiveness and their independence from the business(es) retained by the
    Parties. The Hold Separate Manager(s) shall closely cooperate with and report to the
    Monitoring Trustee and, if applicable, the Divestiture Trustee. Any replacement of
    (any of) the Hold Separate Manager(s) shall be subject to the procedure laid down in
    paragraph 7(c) of these Commitments. The Commission may, after having heard the
    Notifying Party, require the Notifying Party to replace the Hold Separate
    Manager(s).
    Ring-fencing
10. To the extent possible, without impeding the proper functioning of the Divestment
    Businesses, the Parties shall implement, or procure the implementation of, all
    necessary measures to ensure that they do not, after the Effective Date, obtain any
    Confidential Information relating to the Divestment Businesses and that any such
    Confidential Information obtained by the Parties before the Effective Date will be
    eliminated and not be used by the Parties. To the extent applicable, this includes
    measures vis-à-vis the Parties’ appointees on the supervisory board(s) and/or
    board(s) of directors of the Divestment Businesses. In particular, the participation of
    the Divestment Businesses in any central information technology network shall be
    severed to the extent possible, without compromising the viability of the Divestment
    Businesses. The Parties may obtain or keep information relating to the Divestment
    Businesses which is reasonably necessary for the divestiture of the Divestment
    Businesses or the disclosure of which to the Parties is required by law.
    Non-solicitation clause
11. The Parties undertake, subject to customary limitations, not to solicit, and to procure
    that Affiliated Undertakings do not solicit, the Key Personnel transferred with the
    Divestment Businesses for a period of two years after Closing.
    Due diligence
12. In order to enable potential purchasers to carry out a reasonable due diligence of the
    Divestment Businesses, the Parties shall, subject to customary confidentiality
    assurances and dependent on the stage of the divestiture process:
                                               7
 ---pagebreak---       (a)      provide to potential purchasers sufficient information as regards the
               Divestment Businesses;
      (b)      provide to potential purchasers sufficient information relating to the
               Personnel and allow them reasonable access to the Personnel.
      Reporting
13.   The Parties shall submit written reports in English on potential purchasers of the
      Divestment Businesses and developments in the negotiations with such potential
      purchasers to the Commission and the Monitoring Trustee no later than 10 days after
      the end of every month following the Effective Date (or otherwise at the
      Commission’s request). As from the Effective Date, the Parties shall submit a list of
      all potential purchasers having expressed interest in acquiring the Divestment
      Businesses to the Commission at each stage of the divestiture process, as well as a
      copy of all offers made by potential purchasers within five days of their receipt.
14.   Subject to the second sentence of this paragraph, as from the Effective Date, the
      Parties shall inform the Commission and the Monitoring Trustee on the preparation
      of the data room documentation and the due diligence procedure and shall submit a
      copy of any final information memorandum to the Commission and the Monitoring
      Trustee before sending the memorandum out to potential purchasers.
 SECTION D. THE PURCHASER(S)
15.   In order to be approved by the Commission, the Purchaser(s) must fulfil the
      following criteria:
      (a)      The Purchaser(s) shall be independent of and unconnected to the Notifying
               Party and its Affiliated Undertakings (this being assessed having regard to
               the situation following the divestiture.
      (b)      The Purchaser(s) shall have the financial resources, proven expertise and
               incentive to maintain and develop the Divestment Businesses as a viable
               and active competitive force in competition with the Parties and other
               competitors. The Purchaser(s) proven expertise will be assessed in light of
               its experience and track record as a supplier of rolling stock in the EEA, as
               evidenced, inter alia, by prior sales and references;
      (c)      The acquisition of the Divestment Businesses by the Purchaser must neither
               be likely to create, in light of the information available to the Commission,
               prima facie competition concerns nor give rise to a risk that the
               implementation of the Commitments will be delayed. In particular, the
               Purchaser(s) must reasonably be expected to obtain all necessary approvals
               from the relevant regulatory authorities for the acquisition(s) of the
                                                   8
 ---pagebreak---                 Divestment Businesses.
16.   The Sale and Purchase Agreement(s) (as well as ancillary agreements) relating to the
      divestment of any of the Divestment Businesses shall be conditional on the
      Commission’s approval. When the Notifying Party, or the Parties as applicable,
      have reached an agreement with a Purchaser(s), they shall submit a fully documented
      and reasoned proposal, including a copy of the final agreement(s), within one week
      to the Commission and the Monitoring Trustee. The Notifying Party, or the Parties
      as applicable, must be able to demonstrate to the Commission that the Purchaser(s)
      fulfils the Purchaser Criteria and that the Divestment Business(es) are being sold in a
      manner consistent with the Commission’s Decision and the Commitments. For the
      approval, the Commission shall verify that the proposed purchaser fulfils the
      Purchaser Criteria and that the Divestment Business(es) are being sold in a manner
      consistent with the Commitments including their objective to bring about a lasting
      structural change in the market. The Commission may approve the sale of the
      Divestment Business(es) without one or more Assets or parts of the Personnel, or by
      substituting one or more Assets or parts of the Personnel with one or more different
      assets or different personnel, if this does not affect the viability and competitiveness
      of the Divestment Business(es) after the sale, taking account of the proposed
      purchaser.
 SECTION E. TRUSTEE
      I.         Appointment procedure
17.   The Notifying Party shall appoint one or more Monitoring Trustee(s) to carry out the
      functions specified in these Commitments for a Monitoring Trustee(s). The
      Notifying Party commits not to close the Concentration before the appointment of a
      Monitoring Trustee(s).
18.   If the Notifying Party, or the Parties as applicable, has not entered into Sale and
      Purchase Agreement(s) regarding any of the Divestment Businesses one month
      before the end of the First Divestiture Period or if the Commission has rejected any
      purchaser proposed by the Notifying Party, or the Parties as applicable, at that time
      or thereafter, the Notifying Party shall appoint one or more Divestiture Trustee(s).
      The appointment of the Divestiture Trustee(s) shall take effect upon the
      commencement of the Trustee Divestiture Period.
19.   The Trustee(s) shall:
      (i)       at the time of appointment, be independent of the Parties and their Affiliated
                Undertakings;
      (ii)      possess the necessary qualifications to carry out its mandate, for example
                have sufficient relevant experience as an investment banker or consultant or
                                                  9
 ---pagebreak---              auditor; and
    (iii)    neither have nor become exposed to a Conflict of Interest.
20. The Trustee(s) shall be remunerated by the Notifying Party in a way that does not
    impede the independent and effective fulfilment of its mandate. In particular, where
    the remuneration package of a Divestiture Trustee(s) includes a success premium
    linked to the final sale value of any of the Divestment Businesses, such success
    premium may only be earned if the divestiture takes place within the Trustee
    Divestiture Period.
              Proposal by the Notifying Party
21. No later than two weeks after the Effective Date, the Notifying Party shall submit the
    name or names of one or more natural or legal persons whom the Notifying Party
    proposes to appoint as the Monitoring Trustee(s) to the Commission for approval.
    No later than one month before the end of the First Divestiture Period or on request
    by the Commission, the Notifying Party shall submit a list of one or more persons
    whom the Notifying Party proposes to appoint as Divestiture Trustee(s) to the
    Commission for approval. The proposal shall contain sufficient information for the
    Commission to verify that the person or persons proposed as Trustee(s) fulfil the
    requirements set out in this paragraph and shall include:
    (a)      the full terms of the proposed mandate, which shall include all provisions
             necessary to enable the Trustee(s) to fulfil its duties under these
             Commitments;
    (b)      the outline of a work plan which describes how the Trustee(s) intends to
             carry out its assigned tasks;
    (c)      an indication whether the proposed Trustee(s) is to act as both Monitoring
             Trustee(s) and Divestiture Trustee(s) or whether different trustees are
             proposed for the two functions.
              Approval or rejection by the Commission
22. The Commission shall have the discretion to approve or reject the proposed
    Trustee(s) and to approve the proposed mandate subject to any modifications it
    deems necessary for the Trustee(s) to fulfil its obligations. If only one name is
    approved, the Notifying Party shall appoint or cause to be appointed the person or
    persons concerned as Trustee, in accordance with the mandate approved by the
    Commission. If more than one name is approved, the Notifying Party shall be free to
    choose the Trustee(s) to be appointed from among the names approved. The
    Trustee(s) shall be appointed within one week of the Commission’s approval, in
    accordance with the mandate approved by the Commission.
                                              10
 ---pagebreak---                New proposal by the Notifying Party
23. If all the proposed Trustees are rejected, the Notifying Party shall submit the names
    of at least two more natural or legal persons within two weeks of being informed of
    the rejection, in accordance with paragraphs 19 and 24 of these Commitments.
               Trustee nominated by the Commission
24. If all further proposed Trustees are rejected by the Commission, the Commission
    shall nominate one or more Trustee(s), whom the Notifying Party shall appoint, or
    cause to be appointed, in accordance with a trustee mandate approved by the
    Commission.
    II.        Functions of the Trustee
25. The Trustee(s) shall assume its specified duties and obligations in order to ensure
    compliance with the Commitments. The Commission may, on its own initiative or at
    the request of the Trustee(s) or the Notifying Party, give any orders or instructions to
    the Trustee(s) in order to ensure compliance with the conditions and obligations
    attached to the Decision.
               Duties and obligations of the Monitoring Trustee
26. The Monitoring Trustee(s) shall:
    (i)      propose in its first report to the Commission a detailed work plan describing
             how it intends to monitor compliance with the obligations and conditions
             attached to the Decision.
    (ii)     oversee, in close co-operation with the Hold Separate Manager(s), the on-
             going management of the Divestment Businesses with a view to ensuring
             their continued economic viability, marketability and competitiveness and
             monitor compliance by the Parties with the conditions and obligations
             attached to the Decision. To that end the Monitoring Trustee(s) shall:
             (a)    monitor the preservation of the economic viability, marketability and
                    competitiveness of the Divestment Businesses, and the keeping
                    separate of the Divestment Businesses from the business retained by
                    the Parties, in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of these
                    Commitments;
             (b)    supervise the management of the Divestment Businesses as distinct
                    and saleable entity(ies), in accordance with paragraph 10 of these
                    Commitments;
             (c)    with respect to Confidential Information:
                                                 11
 ---pagebreak---                    determine all necessary measures to ensure that the Parties do
                    not after the Effective Date obtain any Confidential Information
                    relating to the Divestment Businesses,
                   in particular strive for the severing of the Divestment
                    Businesses’ participation in a central information technology
                    network to the extent possible, without compromising the
                    viability of the Divestment Businesses,
                   make sure that any Confidential Information relating to the
                    Divestment Businesses obtained by the Parties before the
                    Effective Date is eliminated and will not be used by the Parties,
                    and
                   decide whether such information may be disclosed to or kept by
                    the Parties as the disclosure is reasonably necessary to allow the
                    Parties to carry out the divestiture or as the disclosure is
                    required by law;
      (d)     monitor the splitting of assets and the allocation of Personnel between
              the Divestment Businesses and the Parties or Affiliated Undertakings;
(iii) propose to the Parties such measures as the Monitoring Trustee(s) considers
      reasonably necessary to ensure the Parties’ compliance with the conditions
      and obligations attached to the Decision, in particular the maintenance of the
      full economic viability, marketability or competitiveness of the Divestment
      Businesses, the holding separate of the Divestment Businesses and the non-
      disclosure of competitively sensitive information;
(iv)  review and assess potential purchasers as well as the progress of the
      divestiture process and verify that, dependent on the stage of the divestiture
      process:
      (a)     potential purchasers receive sufficient and correct information relating
              to the Divestment Businesses and the Personnel in particular by
              reviewing, if available, the data room documentation, the information
              memorandum(a) and the due diligence process, and
      (b)     potential purchasers are granted reasonable access to the Personnel;
(v)   act as a contact point for any requests by third parties, in particular potential
      purchasers, in relation to the Commitments;
(vi)  provide to the Commission, sending the Notifying Party a non-confidential
      copy at the same time, a written report within 15 days after the end of every
                                          12
 ---pagebreak---             month that shall cover the operation and management of the Divestment
            Businesses as well as the splitting of Assets and the allocation of Personnel
            so that the Commission can assess whether the business is held in a manner
            consistent with the Commitments and the progress of the divestiture process
            as well as potential purchasers;
    (vii)   promptly report in writing to the Commission, sending the Notifying Party a
            non-confidential copy at the same time, if it concludes on reasonable grounds
            that the Parties are failing to comply with these Commitments;
    (viii)  within one week after receipt of the documented proposal referred to in
            paragraph 18 of these Commitments, submit to the Commission, sending the
            Notifying Party a non-confidential copy at the same time, a reasoned opinion
            as to the suitability and independence of the proposed purchaser(s) and the
            viability of the Divestment Businesses after the sale and as to whether the
            Divestment Businesses are sold in a manner consistent with the conditions
            and obligations attached to the Decision, in particular, if relevant, whether the
            sale of the Divestment Businesses without one or more Assets or not all of
            the Personnel affects the viability of the Divestment Businesses after the sale,
            taking account of the proposed purchaser(s);
    (ix)    assume the other functions assigned to the Monitoring Trustee(s) under the
            conditions and obligations attached to the Decision.
27. If the Monitoring and Divestiture Trustee(s) are not the same legal or natural
    persons, the Monitoring Trustee(s) and the Divestiture Trustee(s) shall cooperate
    closely with each other during and for the purpose of the preparation of the Trustee
    Divestiture Period in order to facilitate each other's tasks.
              Duties and obligations of the Divestiture Trustee
28. Within the Trustee Divestiture Period, the Divestiture Trustee(s) shall sell at no
    minimum price any Divestment Businesses that have not been sold to one or more
    Purchasers, provided that the Commission has approved both the Purchaser(s) and
    the Sale and Purchase Agreement(s) (and ancillary agreements) as in line with the
    Commission's Decision and the Commitments in accordance with paragraphs 16 and
    17 of these Commitments. The Divestiture Trustee(s) shall include in the Sale and
    Purchase Agreement(s) (as well as in any ancillary agreements) such terms and
    conditions as it reasonably considers appropriate for an expedient sale in the Trustee
    Divestiture Period. In particular, the Divestiture Trustee(s) may include in the Sale
    and Purchase Agreement(s) such customary representations and warranties and
    indemnities as are reasonably required to effect the sale. The Divestiture Trustee(s)
    shall protect the legitimate financial interests of the Parties, subject to the Parties’
    unconditional obligation to divest at no minimum price in the Trustee Divestiture
                                                13
 ---pagebreak---     Period.
29. In the Trustee Divestiture Period (or otherwise at the Commission’s request), the
    Divestiture Trustee(s) shall provide the Commission with a comprehensive monthly
    report written in English on the progress of the divestiture process. Such reports
    shall be submitted within 15 days after the end of every month with a simultaneous
    copy to the Monitoring Trustee and a non-confidential copy to the Notifying Party.
    III.      Duties and obligations of the Parties
30. The Parties shall provide and shall cause their advisors to provide the Trustee(s) with
    all such co-operation, assistance and information as the Trustee(s) may reasonably
    require to perform its tasks. The Trustee(s) shall have full and complete access to
    any of the Parties’ or the Divestment Businesses’ books, records, documents,
    management or other personnel, facilities, sites and technical information to the
    extent reasonably deemed necessary for fulfilling its duties under the Commitments
    and the Parties and the Divestment Businesses shall provide the Trustee(s) upon
    request with copies of any such document or record. The Parties and the Divestment
    Businesses shall make available to the Trustee(s) one or more offices on their
    premises and shall be available for meetings in order to provide the Trustee(s) with
    all information reasonably considered necessary for the performance of its tasks.
31. The Parties shall provide the Monitoring Trustee(s) with all managerial and
    administrative support that it may reasonably request on behalf of the management
    of the Divestment Businesses. This shall include all administrative support functions
    relating to the Divestment Businesses which are currently carried out at headquarters
    level. The Parties shall provide and shall cause its advisors to provide the
    Monitoring Trustee(s), on request, with the information submitted to potential
    purchasers, in particular give the Monitoring Trustee(s) access to the data room
    documentation and all other information granted to potential purchasers in the due
    diligence procedure. The Parties shall inform the Monitoring Trustee(s) on possible
    purchasers, submit lists of potential purchasers at each stage of the selection process,
    including the offers made by potential purchasers at those stages, and keep the
    Monitoring Trustee(s) informed of all developments in the divestiture process.
32. The Parties shall grant or procure Affiliated Undertakings to grant comprehensive
    powers of attorney, duly executed, to the Divestiture Trustee(s) to effect the sale
    (including ancillary agreements), the Closing and all actions and declarations which
    the Divestiture Trustee(s) reasonably considers necessary or appropriate to achieve
    the sale and the Closing, including the appointment of advisors to assist with the sale
    process. Upon request of the Divestiture Trustee(s), the Parties shall cause the
    documents required for effecting the sale and the Closing to be duly executed.
33. The Parties shall indemnify the Trustee(s) and its employees and agents (each an
                                               14
 ---pagebreak---     Indemnified Party) and hold each Indemnified Party harmless against, and hereby
    agrees that an Indemnified Party shall have no liability to the Parties for, any
    liabilities arising out of the performance of the Trustee(s)’s duties under the
    Commitments, except to the extent that such liabilities result from the wilful default,
    recklessness, gross negligence or bad faith of the Trustee(s), its employees, agents or
    advisors.
34. At the expense of the Parties, the Trustee(s) may appoint advisors (in particular for
    corporate finance or legal advice), subject to the Parties’ approval (this approval not
    to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) if the Trustee(s) reasonably considers the
    appointment of such advisors necessary or appropriate for the performance of its
    duties and obligations under the Mandate, provided that any fees and other expenses
    incurred by the Trustee(s) are reasonable. Should the Parties refuse to approve the
    advisors proposed by the Trustee(s) the Commission may approve the appointment
    of such advisors instead, after having heard the Parties. Only the Trustee(s) shall be
    entitled to issue instructions to the advisors. Paragraph 34 of these Commitments
    shall apply mutatis mutandis. In the Trustee(s) Divestiture Period, the Divestiture
    Trustee(s) may use advisors who served the Parties during the Divestiture Period if
    the Divestiture Trustee(s) considers this in the best interest of an expedient sale.
35. The Parties agree that the Commission may share Confidential Information
    proprietary to the Parties with the Trustee(s). The Trustee(s) shall not disclose such
    information and the principles contained in Article 17 (1) and (2) of the Merger
    Regulation apply mutatis mutandis.
36. The Parties agree that the contact details of the Monitoring Trustee(s) are published
    on the website of the Commission's Directorate-General for Competition and they
    shall inform interested third parties, in particular any potential purchasers, of the
    identity and the tasks of the Monitoring Trustee(s).
37. For a period of 10 years from the Effective Date the Commission may request all
    information from the Parties that is reasonably necessary to monitor the effective
    implementation of these Commitments.
    IV.        Replacement, discharge and reappointment of the Trustee(s)
38. If a Trustee ceases to perform its functions under the Commitments or for any other
    good cause, including the exposure of the Trustee to a Conflict of Interest:
    (a)       the Commission may, after hearing the Trustee and the Notifying Party,
              require the Notifying Party to replace the Trustee; or
    (b)       the Notifying Party may, with the prior approval of the Commission, replace
              the Trustee.
39. If a Trustee is removed according to this paragraph of the Commitments, the Trustee
                                                15
 ---pagebreak---       may be required to continue in its function until a new Trustee(s) is in place to whom
      the Trustee has effected a full hand over of all relevant information. The new
      Trustee(s) shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure referred to in
      paragraphs 18-25 of these Commitments.
40.   Unless removed according to paragraph 39 of these Commitments, a Trustee shall
      cease to act as Trustee only after the Commission has discharged it from its duties
      after all the Commitments with which the Trustee has been entrusted have been
      implemented. However, the Commission may at any time require the reappointment
      of the Monitoring Trustee if it subsequently appears that the relevant remedies might
      not have been fully and properly implemented.
 SECTION F. FAST-TRACK DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
41.   At the option of the Purchaser(s), any disputes which may arise between either or
      both Parties and the Purchaser(s) (or any of them) (each a Company and jointly the
      Companies) relating to the Commitments and the agreements implementing the
      Commitments for each of the Divestment Businesses as set out in Schedules 1-3 (the
      Agreements) will be subject to a fast-track dispute resolution procedure (the Fast-
      Track Dispute Resolution Procedure) described in this Section F.
42.   If a Company wishes to avail itself of the Fast-Track Dispute Resolution Procedure
      (the Requesting Company), it must notify the other Company in writing (with a copy
      to the Monitoring Trustee) setting out in detail the reasons leading that Company to
      believe that the other Company is failing to comply with the Agreements (the
      Notice).
43.   The Companies will attempt in fair dealing and good faith to resolve all differences
      of opinion and settle all disputes that may arise through cooperation and consultation
      within a reasonable period of time which shall not exceed fifteen (15) business days
      after receipt of the Notice, which may be extended by mutual consent. The
      Monitoring Trustee shall present its own proposal for resolving the dispute within 10
      business days after receipt of the Notice specifying in writing the action, if any, to be
      taken by the Parties in order to ensure compliance with the Commitments, and be
      prepared, if requested, to facilitate the settlement of the dispute.
44.   Any disputes under the Fast-Track Dispute Resolution Procedure arising out of or in
      connection with the Agreements which are not resolved pursuant to the preceding
      paragraph, or in respect of the HS2 VHS Commitment, which are also not resolved,
      in a subsequent step, pursuant to the HS2 Fast-Track DR Procedure (as defined in
      Schedule 1), shall be finally settled in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the
      International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) by an arbitral tribunal consisting of three
      arbitrators (the Arbitral Tribunal).
45.   Should the Companies fail to resolve their differences of opinion through
                                                   16
 ---pagebreak---     cooperation and consultation as provided for in the previous paragraph, the
    Requesting Company shall file arbitration proceedings with the ICC and nominate
    one arbitrator.
46. The other Company shall, within two (2) weeks of receiving notification in writing
    of the appointment of the Requesting Company’s arbitrator, nominate a second
    arbitrator and provide to the Requesting Company in writing detailed reasons for its
    challenged conduct.
47. The arbitrators nominated by the Companies shall, within one (1) week from both
    arbitrators having been nominated, agree to appoint a third arbitrator. If the
    arbitrators nominated by the Companies cannot agree on the nomination of a third
    arbitrator, they shall ask the President of the ICC to appoint the third arbitrator.
48. The arbitrators shall be instructed to make a preliminary ruling on the contested
    issues within one (1) month of the appointment of the third arbitrator, which may be
    extended, if necessary, by the unanimous agreement of all three arbitrators. The
    preliminary ruling shall be applicable immediately and until the final decision is
    issued. The final decision which shall be ultimately binding on the Companies shall
    be taken by the arbitrators within six (6) months of the appointment of the third
    arbitrator, which may be extended, if necessary, by the unanimous agreement of all
    three arbitrators. Each Company waives any right, which it may have to seek a
    preliminary ruling on any point of law from a court of law. An oral hearing shall, as
    a rule, be established within two (2) months of the confirmation of the Arbitration
    Tribunal.
49. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The arbitration shall be in English and
    conducted pursuant to the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC. Any order for the
    production or disclosure of documents shall be limited to the documents on which
    each party of the arbitration specifically relies in its submission(s).
50. The arbitrators shall agree in writing to keep any confidential information and
    business secrets disclosed to them in confidence. The Arbitration Tribunal may take
    the measures necessary for protecting confidential information in particular by
    restricting access to confidential information to the Arbitration Tribunal, and outside
    counsel and experts of the opposing party. The arbitrators shall be instructed not to
    disclose confidential information and to apply the standards attributable to
    confidential information and business secrets by European Union competition law.
51. The Commission shall be allowed and enabled to participate in all stages of the
    procedure by:
    (a)       Receiving all written submissions (including documents and reports, etc.)
              made by the Companies;
                                                 17
 ---pagebreak---       (b)       Receiving all orders, interim and final awards and other documents
                exchanged by the Arbitral Tribunal with the Companies (including Terms of
                Reference and procedural time-table);
      (c)       Being given the opportunity to file amicus curiae briefs; and
      (d)       Being present at the hearing(s) and being allowed to ask questions to
                parties, witnesses and experts.
52.   The Arbitral Tribunal shall forward, or shall order the Companies to forward, the
      documents mentioned to the Commission without delay.
53.   In the event of disagreement between the Companies regarding the interpretation of
      the Commitment, the Arbitral Tribunal may seek the Commission’s interpretation of
      the Commitment before finding in favour of any Company and shall be bound by the
      interpretation.
54.   In the event of disagreement between the Companies regarding the interpretation of a
      Commitment, the Arbitration Tribunal shall inform the Monitoring Trustee and may
      seek the Monitoring Trustee’s interpretation of the Commitment before finding in
      favour of any Company.
55.   The Arbitration Tribunal shall decide the dispute on the basis of the Commitment
      and the Decision. The Commitment shall be construed in accordance with the
      Merger Regulation, EU law, and general principles of law common to the legal
      orders of the Member States without a requirement to apply a particular national
      system.
56.   Nothing in the above-described arbitration procedure shall affect the powers of the
      Commission to take decisions in relation to the Commitment in accordance with its
      powers under the Merger Regulation and the Treaty on the Functioning of the
      European Union.
 SECTION G. THE REVIEW CLAUSE
57.   The Commission may extend the time periods foreseen in the Commitments in
      response to a request from the Notifying Party or, in appropriate cases, on its own
      initiative. Where the Notifying Party requests an extension of a time period, they
      shall submit a request to the Commission no later than one month before the expiry
      of that period, showing good cause. This request shall be accompanied by a report
      from the Monitoring Trustee(s), who shall, at the same time send a non-confidential
      copy of the report to the Parties. Only in exceptional circumstances shall the
      Notifying Party be entitled to request an extension within the last month of any
      period.
                                                 18
 ---pagebreak--- 58.   The Commission may further, in response to a request from the Notifying Party
      showing good cause waive, modify or substitute, in exceptional circumstances, one
      or more of the undertakings in these Commitments. This request shall be
      accompanied by a report from the Monitoring Trustee(s), who shall, at the same time
      send a non-confidential copy of the report to the Parties. The request shall not have
      the effect of suspending the application of the undertaking and, in particular, of
      suspending the expiry of any time period in which the undertaking has to be
      complied with.
 SECTION H. ENTRY INTO FORCE
59.   The Commitments shall take effect upon the date of adoption of the Decision.
                                               19
 ---pagebreak---                                                     SCHEDULE 1
                                   The Very High Speed Divestment Business
A.        Description of the Very High Speed Divestment Business
1.1       The Very High Speed Divestment Business consists of the Zefiro V300 Divestment
          Business and the HS2 VHS Commitment.
1.2       The Zefiro V300 Divestment Business consists of Bombardier’s entire scope of the
          Zefiro V300 Platform, as follows:
          (a)    Zefiro V300 Platform. The exclusive right to develop, improve, manufacture
                 and commercialise Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro V300 platform as currently
                 manufactured for and operated by Trenitalia (and, in the near future, ILSA) (the
                 “Zefiro V300 Platform”1065).
          (b)    Engineering personnel. The transfer of up to […] Zefiro V300 engineers and,
                 at the option of the Purchaser, sub-system engineering support (e.g., through
                 training, secondments, etc.).
          (c)    Vado Ligure site. At the Purchaser’s option, the sale or lease of Vado Ligure
                 facility, including engineering, production, and aftermarket services capabilities.
          (d)    Additional assets. At the option of the Purchaser:
                    a. Zefiro brand. The Zefiro brand, subject to a license back for the Zefiro
                        Express.
                    b. Stock. Bombardier’s current stock of Zefiro V300-specific components
                        and spare parts.
                    c. Maintenance personnel. Up to […] maintenance execution personnel and
                        up to […] maintenance engineering, customer service and support staff
                        currently involved in providing maintenance services to Trenitalia for the
                        Zefiro V300.
                    d. Maintenance diagnostics software.                   A non-exclusive license for
                        Bombardier’s train maintenance diagnostic software tools limited to V300
                        Zefiro applications.
          (e)    Zefiro V300 projects and associated backlog with existing customers.
                 Bombardier1066 offers to transfer, subject to customer consent, its contractual
1065      The Zefiro V300 Platform means the Zefiro V300 train configuration committed or existing in respect
     of the Trenitalia Projects and the ILSA Project (as defined below) existing at the date of Closing (as defined
     in the Commitments), together with such further modifications as may be agreed with the Purchaser such as
     in respect of any updates required for TSI 2019 compliance.
1066      Any reference to Bombardier in this Schedule shall be read to mean Alstom as of closing of the
     Concentration (as defined in the Commitments).
                                                            20
 ---pagebreak---                  interest in supply and maintenance contracts for Zefiro V300 projects with
                 Trenitalia and [a likely future customer], including backlog (the “Existing
                 Projects”), and its interest in any new agreements related to the exercise of
                 options, call-offs, and any follow-on orders by Trenitalia or [a likely future
                 customer].
         (f)     Supply agreements. The transfer, at the option of the Purchaser, of all supply
                 agreements with external suppliers for main components or services for
                 Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro V300 for the Existing Projects (including by
                 transferring all relevant IP and procurement specifications), subject to any
                 applicable consent rights;
         (g)     Transitional arrangements. Bombardier offers to put in place transitional
                 arrangements, including (i) continuing to perform its supply obligations for all
                 Existing Projects, and (ii) entering into temporary supply or licensing
                 agreements with the Purchaser in respect of (a) options, calls offs or follow-on
                 orders by Trenitalia or [a likely future customer], or future very high speed1067
                 orders for which Trenitalia (or any consortium in which Trenitalia will be the
                 operator) issues a call for tender within […] years of Closing and (b) future very
                 high speed bids submitted within […] years of Closing. (the “Transitional
                 Arrangements”, as described in Section 5 below).                    The Transitional
                 Arrangements will last [Confidential details of duration of transitional
                 arrangements offered], as further described in Section 5 below.
                 as further described in Section B below.
1.3      The HS2 VHS Commitment consists of the following:
         (a)     [Bid-selection mechanism]. Alstom and Bombardier offer to put in place a
                 mechanism whereby [Confidential details of the bid-selection mechanism that
                 Alstom commits to put in place if the Transaction closes before the HS2 tender
                 is awarded];
         If the HS2 Project (as defined in Section C below) is awarded to the
         Bombardier/Hitachi consortium:
         (b)     Ongoing and future obligations towards Hitachi and HS2. [Confidential
                 information on Alstom’s commitments vis-a-vis Hitachi and HS2 that apply in
                 the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the HS2 tender.]
         (c)     Licence of Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer of
                 Technology.
                   a. The Parties offer, at the Purchaser’s option (such option to be exercised
                        within […] months from the first train delivery to HS2):
                              i. to grant a [Confidential information on the licensing of Bombardier
                                  HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer of Technology in
                                  the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the HS2
1067     Very high speed means projects or tenders, as applicable, involving the supply of trains that are
     required to be certified for operation at speeds of at least 300 km/h.
                                                               21
 ---pagebreak---                              tender.] license covering all IP rights and documentation relating to
                             Bombardier’s scope for the HS2 Project for use in future very high
                             speed projects, to the extent such IP rights and documentation are
                             not covered by the Zefiro V300 Divestment Business;
                       ii. to provide engineering support (e.g., through training,
                             secondments, etc.) in respect of Bombardier’s scope of the HS2
                             Project for up to […] years following the exercise of this option
                             and on commercially reasonable terms.
              b. If the Purchaser opts not to exercise the above option, upon completion of
                  the full performance of all of Bombardier’s obligations in respect of the
                  HS2 Project, Alstom offers to grant a [Confidential information on the
                  licensing of Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer
                  of Technology in the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins
                  the HS2 tender.] license covering all IP rights and documentation relating
                  to Bombardier’s scope for the HS2 Project for use in future very high
                  speed projects.
          as further described in section C below.
B.    The Zefiro V300 Divestment Business
1.   The Zefiro V300 Platform consists of the following:
     Zefiro V300-specific IP and documentation
1.1  A transfer of all Zefiro V300-specific IP rights and documentation relating to
     Bombardier’s scope for the Existing Projects. The transfer will cover:
     (a)    Train design. All the Zefiro V300-specific IP rights and documentation
            (including all homologation-related documentation1068) relating to the overall
            train design, vehicle architecture and vehicle safety for Existing Projects. At the
            Purchaser’s option, the exclusive and perpetual license can be replaced by a
            sale.
     (b)    Bogies. All IP rights and documentation (including engineering bill of materials
            (E-BoM), technical drawings and specifications) for Zefiro V300-specific
            applications of the […] bogies platform for the Trenitalia Project.
     (c)    PPC (Traction components and software). All IP rights and documentation
            (including engineering bill of materials (E-BoM), technical drawings and
            specifications,) for Zefiro V300-specific applications for the Trenitalia Project.
     (d)    TCMS. All IP rights and documentation for Zefiro V300-specific […] software
            project applications for the Trenitalia Project, including source code.
1068 Including type tests, submission dossiers and responses.
                                                       22
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---                 valued at €[…] (Bombardier’s scope), as part of a new contract which is
                currently under negotiation between Bombardier, Hitachi and Trenitalia.
3.     Supply agreements consists of the following:
3.1    The transfer, at the option of the Purchaser, of any or all supply agreements with
       external suppliers for main components or services for Bombardier’s scope of the
       Zefiro V300 (including by transferring all relevant IP and procurement
       specifications), subject to any applicable consent rights of such suppliers. For
       agreements that relate to components used in several Bombardier platforms,
       Bombardier offers to carve out the Zefiro V300-specific supply perimeters and
       transfer them to the Purchaser.
3.2    An overview of the main external suppliers for Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro
       V300 is included in Annex 1 below.
4.     Transitional arrangements consists of the following:
4.1    Bombardier offers to continue to perform its supply obligations for all Existing
       Projects, including putting in place the Transitional Arrangements set out in Table 6
       below.
           Table 6: Proposed Transitional Arrangements for Existing Projects
  [Confidential details on the specific services covered by the transitional arrangements.]1070
4.2    The Transitional Arrangements will cover manufacturing and engineering services, as
       well as more administrative tasks, and will last until [Confidential details of duration
       of transitional arrangements offered].
4.3    The Transitional Arrangements will also be provided for (i) the exercise of options,
       calls offs or any follow-on orders if the request to supply is issued by Trenitalia or
       ILSA within […] years of Closing; (ii) future very high speed orders for which
       Trenitalia (or any consortium in which Trenitalia will be the operator) issues a call for
       tender within […] years of Closing, and (iii) any new very high speed tenders for
       which the Purchaser has submitted a complete technical and commercial bid (with any
       customer other than Trenitalia or [a likely future customer]) based on the Zefiro V300
       Platform within […] years of Closing.
4.4    The Transitional Arrangements exclude any options, calls offs or any follow-on orders
       of such future orders, save to the extent provided in the contractual documentation.
4.5    The Transitional Arrangements will last [Confidential details of duration of
       transitional arrangements offered]. At the option of the Purchaser, these Transitional
       Arrangements may be terminated at an earlier date.
1070    [Confidential details on the specific services covered by the transitional arrangements].
                                                           25
 ---pagebreak---                  Transitional provision of maintenance services
4.6     The Transitional Arrangements will only cover initial assistance and training with
        regard to maintenance for Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro V300 Platform, and the
        Purchaser will entirely take over maintenance work as soon as possible after Closing,
        within a period of no more than […] months.
5.      Vado Ligure site consists of the following:
5.1     At the option of the Purchaser, the Zefiro V300 Divestment Business will include the
        sale or lease of Bombardier’s plant located in Vado Ligure, Italy.
5.2     The plant includes:
        (a)    All Vado Ligure engineering services for the Zefiro V300 and associated
               personnel. The plant could potentially be equipped to host very high speed train
               final assembly and testing by, for example, the changes proposed under (c)
               below.
        (b)    All Vado Ligure aftermarket services assets, including warehousing facilities.
        (c)    At the option of the Purchaser, Bombardier offers to (i) set up production assets
               for final assembly of the Zefiro V300 bogies and wheelsets in Vado Ligure; (ii)
               adapt Vado Ligure’s final assembly lines and testing infrastructure to very high
               speed rolling stock; and (iii) sell or lease a software lab for propulsion testing in
               Zurich (Switzerland).
5.3     The complete list of manufacturing and testing assets be transferred as part of the
        Vado Ligure site is provided in Annex 2 below.
5.4     A breakdown of FTE estimates for 2020 for the Zefiro V300 for personnel employed
        at the Vado Ligure site (prepared prior to the Covid-19 outbreak) is provided in Table
        7 below.1071
1071     Bombardier notes that these FTE estimates for 2020 are likely to be significantly overstated due to the
     Covid-19 outbreak and related lockdown measures in place in Italy.
                                                         26
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- C.       The HS2 VHS Commitment
1.       The HS2 VHS Commitment consists of the following:
1.1      The HS2 Project refers to Bombardier’s scope of and interest in a joint bid submission
         by Bombardier and Hitachi pursuant to a consortium agreement dated […] in respect
         of the ongoing tender procedure by High Speed Two Limited (“HS2”) for the design
         and manufacture of 54 very high speed trains for operation on the UK’s new very high
         speed rail network between London, Birmingham and Northern England, together
         with the maintenance of that fleet for a minimum period of 12 years; and in any
         manufacturing, supply, or other agreements that may be entered into directly as a
         result of the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium1072 bid being selecting as the winning
         bidder by HS2 (including any options, call-offs or repeat orders to the extent provided
         for in agreements for the initial order of up to 54 very high speed trains) (the “HS2
         Project”).
2.       [Bid-selection mechanism]
2.1      If the tender for the HS2 Project has not been awarded prior to closing of the
         Concentration, [Confidential details of the bid-selection mechanism that Alstom
         commits to put in place if the Transaction closes before the HS2 tender is awarded].
2.2      [Confidential details of the bid-selection mechanism that Alstom commits to put in
         place if the Transaction closes before the HS2 tender is awarded], Alstom and
         Bombardier offer to, [Confidential details of the bid-selection mechanism that Alstom
         commits to put in place if the Transaction closes before the HS2 tender is awarded]:
       (a)     put in place a mechanism whereby [Confidential details of the bid-selection
               mechanism that Alstom commits to put in place if the Transaction closes before
               the HS2 tender is awarded]; and
         (b)   [Confidential details of the bid-selection mechanism that Alstom commits to put
               in place if the Transaction closes before the HS2 tender is awarded].
1072     Any reference to the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium in this Schedule shall be read to mean
     Alstom/Hitachi consortium as of closing of the Concentration (as defined in the Commitments).
                                                         28
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3 [Confidential details of the bid-selection mechanism that Alstom commits to put in
    place if the Transaction closes before the HS2 tender is awarded].
3.  Ongoing and future obligations towards Hitachi and HS2
3.1 If HS2 awards the HS2 Project to the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium (and only
    provided that the HS2 Project is awarded to the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium):
    [Confidential information on Alstom’s commitments vis-a-vis Hitachi and HS2 that
    apply in the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the tender.]
4.  Licence of Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer of
    Technology
4.1 If HS2 awards the HS2 Project to the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium (and only
    provided that the HS2 Project is awarded to the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium), the
    Parties offer to the Purchaser an option to purchase a [Confidential information on the
    licensing of Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and Transfer of
    Technology in the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the HS2
    tender.] license (based on an upfront lump-sum royalty to be agreed with the
    Purchaser) covering all IP rights and documentation owned by Bombardier relating to
    Bombardier’s scope for the HS2 Project (including IP rights and documentation that
    are not specific to the HS2 Project) for use in future very high speed projects, which
    can be exercised at the following times:
    [Confidential details on the three alternative periods/dates when Hitachi can exercise
    the option for the Licence of Bombardier HS2 Project IP and Documentation and
    Transfer of Technology.]
    in each case the option may be exercised within 4 weeks of occurrence of the relevant
    event.
4.2 If the option is exercised under 4.1(a), the closing of the licensing agreement (i.e.,
    making the relevant IP available to the Purchaser) will be conditional upon
    [Confidential information on Alstom’s commitments vis-a-vis Hitachi and HS2 that
    apply in the event that the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium wins the tender.]
4.3 If the option is exercised under 4.1(a) or (b), Alstom offers to provide the Purchaser
    with engineering support (e.g., through training, secondments, etc.) in respect of
    Bombardier’s scope of the HS2 Project for a period of up to […] years following the
    delivery of the first train to HS2, on commercially reasonable terms.
4.4 Monitoring Trustee and dispute resolution. As set out in paragraph 6 of the
    Commitments, the Monitoring Trustee will monitor Alstom and Bombardier’s
    compliance with the HS2 VHS Commitment for the duration of Alstom’s obligations
    towards HS2 and Hitachi as part of the HS2 Project.
4.5 In addition to the Fast-Track Dispute Resolution Procedure included in the
    Commitments, at the option of the Purchaser and with the consent of HS2, any
    disputes which may arise between either or both Parties and the Purchaser or HS2
    relating to the HS2 VHS Commitment will be subject to a dedicated fast-track dispute
                                               29
 ---pagebreak---     resolution procedure (the “HS2 Fast-Track DR Procedure”) as described in Annex 3
    below.
D.  Common Provisions Applicable to the Zefiro V300 Divestment Business and the
    HS2 VHS Commitment
1.  Future bids
1.1 Nothing in this Schedule or in the Commitments shall prevent Alstom or the
    Purchaser from participating, directly or indirectly, in any future bid for the supply of
    very high speed trains. In the event that the rules applicable to such bids prohibit or
    limit the ability to act both as a supplier to another bidder and as an independent
    bidder, each of Alstom and the Purchaser shall make an independent determination in
    its sole and absolute discretion as to whether to submit a stand-alone bid or to bid in
    collaboration with another party (subject, in respect of the Zefiro V300 Divestment
    Business, to the terms of the [Confidential details on ongoing sale negotiations
    between the Parties and Hitachi]).
2.  Information barriers
2.1 In reference to their obligation under paragraph 6 of the Commitments, in relation to
    the VHS HS2 Commitment, the Parties commit to:
    (a)    Implement and respect strict separation rules (such as information barriers)
           between the teams involved in the Bombardier/Hitachi consortium bid and the
           teams involved in the Alstom bid for the HS2 Project as required until the
           earlier of: [Confidential information on information barriers to be put in place
           for the HS2 Project.]
    (b)    Put in place all necessary and appropriate safeguards and protections to ensure
           that any competitively sensitive information of the Purchaser in relation to the
           Existing Projects, the HS2 Project (if awarded to the Bombardier/Hitachi
           consortium), and any new very high speed project or tender for which the
           Parties may provide Transitional Arrangements to the Purchaser, could not be
           used in any of the Parties’ other projects.
3.  The Very High Speed Divestment Business shall not include:
    (a)    Any personnel of the Combined Entity, other than expressly included;
    (b)    Any production facilities, manufacturing units, or R&D facilities, other than
           expressly included;
    (c)    Tangible and intangible assets (including intellectual property rights) which do
           not contribute to the current operation of the Zefiro V300 Divestment Business
           or the envisaged future operation of the HS2 VHS Commitment;
    (d)    Tangible and intangible assets (including intellectual property rights) that are
           shared between the Zefiro V300 Divestment Businesses, the HS2 VHS
           Commitment and Alstom’s retained business other than expressly included;
                                                30
 ---pagebreak--- (e) Any IP, know-how, copyright relating to components that the Purchaser might
    procure from Bombardier other than expressly included;
(f) The Zefiro brand for use as part of the Zefiro Express, Bombardier’s company
    name, mark or logo in any form;
(g) Bombardier’s existing supply agreements for non-critical, commodity (non-
    rolling-stock specific) components and
(h) Any sub-supply or maintenance agreements between Bombardier and other
    rolling stock suppliers or operators in respect of non-Zefiro V300 (very) high
    speed trains;
(i) All books and records to be retained pursuant to any statute, rule, regulation or
    ordinance, provided that Bombardier will provide copies of such documents
    necessary of the Very High Speed Divestment Business to the Purchaser upon
    request;
(j) General books of account and books of original entry that comprise Combined
    Entity or any of its Affiliated undertakings’ permanent accounting or tax records
    provided that Combined Entity will provide copies of such documents necessary
    for the Very High Speed Divestment Business to the Purchaser, upon request;
    and
(k) Any other rights, assets or interests not expressly included.
                                          31
 ---pagebreak---                                     Annex 1
Overview of main external suppliers for Bombardier’s scope of the Zefiro V300
         [Confidential information on Bombardier’s external suppliers.]
                                         32
 ---pagebreak---                                          Annex 2
              Overview of Vado Ligure Manufacturing and Testing Assets
1. The complete list of manufacturing and testing assets that are located in Vado Ligure is as
   follows: [Confidential information on Vado Ligure manufacturing and testing assets.]
                                                33
 ---pagebreak---                                         Annex 3
                           HS2 Fast Track-DR Procedure
1. This HS2 Fast-Track DR Procedure is available, at the option of the Purchaser and
   with the consent of HS2, to resolve any disputes which may arise between either or
   both Parties and the Purchaser or HS2 (each a Company and jointly the Companies)
   relating to the HS2 VHS Commitment .
2. This HS2 Fast-Track DR Procedure is only available after the Companies attempted to
   resolve any differences pursuant to paragraph 43 of the Commitments and before one
   of the Companies initiating arbitration provided for in paragraph 44 of the
   Commitments.
3. If a Company wishes to avail itself of the HS2 Fast-Track DR Procedure (the
   Requesting Company), it must notify the other Company in writing (with a copy to
   the Monitoring Trustee) setting out in detail the reasons leading that Company to
   believe that the other Company is failing to comply with the HS2 VHS Commitment
   (the Notice).
   a.      THE PROCEDURE
4. At the latest a month after the approval by the Commission of the Monitoring Trustee,
   Alstom shall propose a list of names for the Monitoring Trustee and the Commission
   to consider as potential experts to adjudicate in disputes (the “Experts”). The Experts
   shall be independent, suitably qualified, and shall have the necessary experience,
   competence, and qualifications in relation to very high speed rolling stock projects.
5. Where paragraph 43 of the Commitments applies, the Monitoring Trustee shall
   appoint one of the Experts to adjudicate on the dispute within 5 working days of
   expiry of the period set out in paragraph 43 of the Commitments.
6. The process shall be conducted in private and shall be confidential. The language of
   the process shall be in English.
7. The Expert shall act on the following basis:
   (a) the Expert shall act fairly and impartially;
   (b) each party shall submit to the Expert its brief and its submission in relation to the
       matter in dispute within 10 working days of the Expert's appointment;
   (c) Each party shall assist and provide such documentation as the Expert reasonably
       requires to consider the matters referred to it;
   (d) the Expert’s determination shall be given within a maximum period of 20 working
       days of the Expert’s appointment;
                                               34
 ---pagebreak---     (e) the Expert's determination in relation to any matter pursuant to paragraph 43 of the
        Commitments shall (save for manifest error or fraud) be final and binding on the
        Parties and the Requesting Party;
    (f) any challenge to the Expert’s determination in accordance with the clause above
        shall be made according to the arbitration procedure provided for in the
        Commitments;
    (g) each party shall carry out the actions required to comply with the obligations set
        out in the Expert’s determination in relation to any matter pursuant to paragraph of
        the Commitments within any time-limits specified by the Expert; and
    (h) the Requesting Party shall pay the Expert’s costs if the Expert’s determination
        upholds the Parties’ claims. Alstom will pay the Expert’s costs if the Expert’s
        determination upholds the Requesting Party’s claims. The Expert shall otherwise
        determine how and by whom the costs of the determination are to be paid.
    b.       INVOLVEMENT OF THE COMMISSION
8. The Commission shall be allowed and enabled to participate in all stages of the
    procedure by:
    (a) receiving all written submissions (including documents and reports, etc.) made
        each party to the procedure;
    (b) receiving all documents exchanged by the Expert with the parties to the procedure;
    (c) filing any written submissions; and
    (d) being present at the hearing(s) and being allowed to ask questions to the parties.
9. The Expert shall forward, or shall order the parties to forward, the documents
    mentioned in the previous paragraph to the Commission without delay.
10. The Monitoring Trustee shall receive copies of:
    (a) all submissions made by the parties to the procedure in relation to the matters they
        wish to have resolved by the Expert, on the day when these have been submitted
        to the Expert;
    (b) all other documentation provided by the parties, on the day when these have been
        submitted to the Expert; and
    (c) the determination made by the Expert, on the day when the determination has been
        provided to the parties.
                                               35
 ---pagebreak---                                     SCHEDULE 2
                    The Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business
1.  Description of the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business
1.1 The “Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business” consists of Alstom’s Coradia
    Polyvalent Platform, the Reichshoffen plant and related activities, including:
    (a)  Coradia Polyvalent Platform Divestment. The exclusive right to develop,
         adapt, manufacture and commercialise the Coradia Polyvalent regional EMU
         and bimode mainline platform (the “Coradia Polyvalent Platform”), including
         related Polyvalent-specific subsystems and components and perpetual non-
         exclusive licenses for subsystems and components that are not specific to the
         Coradia Polyvalent Platform.
    (b)  Coradia Polyvalent Contracts and Associated Backlog. Alstom offers to
         transfer all existing Coradia Polyvalent backlog, subject to customer consent,
         including:
         (i)   The delivery of […] Coradia Polyvalent trainsets as part of the 2009 frame
               contract with SNCF, valued at €[…], and existing options for […]
               trainsets subject to [Confidential considerations for alternative energy];
               and
         (ii)  The delivery of […] Coradia Polyvalent trainsets as part of the 2019
               contract with the Hello Paris Consortium (consisting of RATP and
               Keolis), valued at €[…].
    (c)  The Reichshoffen Plant Divestment. Alstom offers, through a transfer, the
         divestment of its entire Reichshoffen manufacturing plant located in Bas-Rhin,
         France, consisting of: (i) engineering and manufacturing facilities for various
         types of rolling stock (newbuild and renovation), warehousing facilities, and
         testing facilities, together with associated permanent onsite personnel ([…]
         FTEs); and (ii) subject to customer consent, the transfer of the MI84 renovation
         project (with a backlog of €[…]), and a subcontract for the carbody shell
         manufacturing for Metro de Lille (with a backlog of €[…]), which are currently
         undertaken at the Reichshoffen plant.
    (d)  Supply and Transitional Agreements. At the option of the Purchaser, Alstom
         offers to (i) supply carbody shells, bogies, and traction systems; (ii) supply
         TCMS, hardware & middleware; (iii) supply components and subsystems
         designed by Alstom for [Confidential upgrade]; and (iv) provide transitional
         services agreements for warranty services and support functions that are
         currently provided by Alstom’s central organization.
    (e)  [Confidential upgrade].1 At the option of the Purchaser, Alstom also offers to
    1      [Confidential upgrade].
                                             36
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---           the Coradia Polyvalent Platform for which Alstom relies on third-party suppliers
          (subject to supplier consent), including in relation to available stock relating to
          the Coradia Polyvalent; or
    (b)   support the Purchaser in negotiations with third-party component suppliers to
          obtain similar terms and conditions for the procurement of components specific
          to the Coradia Polyvalent Platform for which Alstom relies on third-party
          suppliers.
2.6 Absent supplier consent, Alstom will continue to procure the relevant components
    from third-party suppliers for the duration of the Coradia Polyvalent Contracts and
    transfer the components to the Purchaser at cost to the extent allowed in Alstom’s
    existing procurement agreements with the third-party suppliers.
2.7 If there is any asset or personnel which is not be covered by paragraph 2 of this
    Schedule but which is both used (exclusively or not) in the Divestment Business and
    necessary for the continued viability and competitiveness of the Divestment Business,
    that asset, adequate substitute, or support (including supply or service agreements)
    will be offered to the Purchaser, which will oversee the process.
3.  The Coradia Polyvalent Contracts and Associated Backlog consists of the
    following:
    Contracts and Backlog
3.1 Alstom offers to transfer, subject to customer consent, all existing rolling stock
    contracts for Coradia Polyvalent with SNCF and the Hello Paris Consortium
    (consisting of RATP and Keolis), including all backlog and options:
    (a)   The delivery of […] remaining Coradia Polyvalent trainsets (consisting of EMU
          and bimode versions) ordered to date as part of the 2009 contract with SNCF,
          valued at €[…] as of March 30, 2020, and existing options for […] trainsets
          subject to [Confidential considerations for alternative energy].
    (b)   The delivery of […] mainline EMU Coradia Polyvalent trainsets as part of the
          2019 contract with RATP and Keolis, valued at €[…].
3.2 Absent customer consent, […].
4.  [Confidential considerations for alternative energy]
4.1 […]. [Confidential considerations for alternative energy] are without prejudice to
    the Purchaser’s ability to: (i) integrate its own (or externally sourced) BEMU traction
    system to the Coradia Polyvalent Platform for any demands for a BEMU version
    (including […]); and (ii) integrate its own (or externally sourced) hybrid or hydrogen
    fuel-cell traction for any future demands outside the […].
5.  The Reichshoffen Plant Divestment consists of the following:
5.1 The Reichshoffen Plant Divestment will include the divestment of: (i) the site;
    including related assets (such as tools/jigs etc.); (ii) personnel; and (iii) existing
                                                 39
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- 6.  Supply and Transitional Agreements consist of the following:
    Supply agreements
6.1 At the option of the Purchaser, Alstom offers to provide the following supply
    agreements to the Purchaser to: (i) effectively manufacture and deliver the remaining
    backlog and additional options under the existing contracts with SNCF and the Hello
    Paris without any degradation in quality or lead time; and (ii) participate in new
    tenders with the Coradia Polyvalent Platform on competitive terms.
    (a)   Subject to being granted a back-license to enable such supply, Coradia
          Polyvalent-specific components and subsystems, for which Alstom already
          offers the transfer of all relevant intellectual property rights and
          documentation,including:
          (i)   Carbody shell subsystem parts. Including carbody sub-assemblies roof,
                cabin and end wall.
          (ii)  Bogies subsystem. Including frames, wheels, axles, and wheelsets.
    (b)   Non-Coradia Polyvalent specific components and subsystems, for which Alstom
          already offers non-exclusive licences to the Purchaser, including:
          (i)   Traction systems. Complete EMU or bimode traction system or
                components such as ESS converter, traction and auxiliary converter
                (power modules & electronics), HV components.
          (ii)  Components. Including non-Coradia Polyvalent-specific components for
                bogies (such as PMM motors and dampers), traction, and TCMS.
    (c)   Additional components and subsystems that do not fall under the scope of the
          Coradia Polyvalent Platform Divestment, including:
          (i)   BEMU traction system. Complete BEMU traction system or components
                such as ESS converter, traction and auxiliary converter (power modules &
                electronics), HV components.
          (ii)  TCMS hardware & middleware. Support, including engineering support,
                for TCMS Middleware evolution.
          (iii) [Confidential upgrade]-specific components and subsystems, for
                components and subsystems designed by Alstom and which do not fall
                under the Reichshoffen Plant Divestment’ competencies.
6.2 Supply agreements for the purpose of fulfilling obligations or potential options under
    the existing SNCF and Hello Paris Consortium agreements will be concluded for a
    duration equal to the duration of the underlying agreements with the customers. For
    these agreements, Alstom will offer to supply the relevant components and
    subsystems to the Purchaser based on its existing internal pricing arrangements.
6.3 Supply agreements concerning trains to be supplied for new tenders will be limited to
    new tenders awarded within five years of Closing and will last for a duration of three
    years from initial purchase under the relevant supply agreement. For these
                                              42
 ---pagebreak---     agreements, Alstom will offer to supply the relevant components and subsystems to
    the Purchaser at cost.
    Transitional services agreements
6.4 At the option of the Purchaser, Alstom will provide the Purchaser with transitional
    services agreements to cover warranty services for the Coradia Polyvalent Platform
    under the existing agreements with SNCF and Hello Paris Consortium and provide
    central functions at the Reichshoffen plant.
    (a)   Warranty services. Alstom offers to provide an optional transitional services
          agreement for the warranty services for the SNCF and the Hello Paris
          agreements, including for the [Confidential upgrade].
    (b)   Central functions. Alstom offers to supply temporary transitional services for
          support functions that are currently provided by Alstom’s central organization
          (including, sourcing, supply chain, Finance, HR, IT, and legal).
    Monitoring Trustee
6.5 The Monitoring Trustee appointed for the Commitments will monitor Alstom’s
    compliance with the Supply and Transitional Services Agreements for their duration.
7.  [Confidential upgrade] consists of the following:
7.1 [Details on confidential upgrade]
7.2 [Details on confidential upgrade]
7.3 [Details on confidential upgrade].
7.4 For components and subsystems that are not part of Reichshoffen Plant Divestment’s
    current competencies but that are necessary for the [confidential upgrade], Alstom
    offers to, at the option of the Purchaser, provide engineering support to the Purchaser
    for the [confidential upgrade] required for all components and subsystems.
8.  The Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business shall not include any right, title
    and/or interest in (the “Carve-Out Assets”):
    (a)    intellectual property rights, documentation, or prototypes for hybrid, hydrogen,
           or BEMU traction systems;
    (b)    APTIS’s rented area and activities, except for the lease and the Service Level
           Agreement;
    (c)    the transfer of Alstom’s agreement with Lille Metropole for the supply of
           metros;
    (d)    Center of excellence for carbody shells, including any related intellectual
           property rights, know-how, documentation, tangible and intangible assets, and
                                               43
 ---pagebreak---     related personnel ([…] FTEs);9
(e) the Train Control and Management Systems division, including any related
    intellectual property rights, know-how, documentation, tangible and intangible
    assets, and related personnel that is not specific to the Coradia Polyvalent ([…]
    FTEs);10
(f) PMCO personnel that is not specific to the to the Coradia Polyvalent ([…]
    FTEs);11
(g) shared administrative personnel ([…] FTE);
(h) any personnel of the Combined Entity, other than expressly included above;
(i) the Coradia brand, Alstom’s company name, mark or logo in any form;
(j) intellectual property rights related to engineering design & calculation of the
    bogies subsystem, the PMM motor and dampers;
(k) TCMS software application layer proprietary tools to compile and test the code-
    tools;
(l) existing supply agreements for non-Coradia Polyvalent-specific commodity
    components;
(m) intellectual property rights related to TCMS hardware and middleware;
(n) intellectual property rights related to traction system subcomponents (ESS
    converter, traction converter, and auxiliary converter’s subcomponents (power
    module and electronics, HV components) and software (traction and auxiliary
    software as well as tooling to compile and validate the code);
(o) any production assets, manufacturing units, or R&D facilities, other than
    expressly included above;
(p) tangible and intangible assets (including intellectual property rights) which do
    not contribute to the current operation of the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment
    Business;
(q) tangible and intangible assets (including intellectual property rights) that are
    shared between the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Businesses and Alstom’s
    retained business other than as expressly included above;
9     The remaining […] FTEs is included in the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business.
10    The Train Control and Management Systems division that is specific to the Coradia
      Polyvalent, including any related intellectual property rights, know-how, documentation,
      tangible and intangible assets, and related personnel ([…] FTEs) is included in the Coradia
      Polyvalent Divestment Business.
11    The remaining […] FTEs is included in the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business.
                                               44
 ---pagebreak--- (r) any IP, know-how, copyright relating to components that the Purchaser might
    procure from Alstom other than as expressly included above;
(s) all books and records to be retained pursuant to any statute, rule, regulation or
    ordinance, provided that Alstom will provide copies of such documents
    necessary of the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business to the Purchaser upon
    request;
(t) general books of account and books of original entry that comprise Combined
    Entity or any of its Affiliated undertakings’ permanent accounting or tax records
    provided that Combined Entity will provide copies of such documents necessary
    for the Coradia Polyvalent Divestment Business to the Purchaser, upon request;
    and
(u) any other rights, assets or interests not expressly included.
                                     ***
                                          45
 ---pagebreak--- [Confidential annex]
            46
 ---pagebreak---                                           SCHEDULE 3
                             The Talent 3 Divestment Business
1.  Description of the Talent 3 Divestment Business
1.1 The “Talent 3 Divestment Business” consists of Bombardier’s Talent 3 Platform, and
    at the option of the Purchaser, the sale or lease of the Talent-3 specific carve-out of
    Bombardier’s Hennigsdorf site (the “Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area”), including:
    (f)    Talent 3 Platform Divestment. The exclusive right to develop, adapt,
           manufacture, and commercialise the Talent 3 regional EMU platform (the
           “Talent 3 Platform”), including related Talent 3-specific subsystems and
           components and perpetual non-exclusive licenses for subsystem documentation
           shared with other Bombardier platforms, including bogies, propulsion, and
           TCMS subsystem
    (g)    Talent 3 Contracts and Associated Backlog. Bombardier offers to transfer all
           existing rolling stock agreements (including future options worth €[…]) with
           Abellio, Netinera, SWEG, STA, and ÖBB for the Talent 3 Platform and
           associated backlog valued at €[…]:1
           (i)     the delivery of […] trains as part of three supply contracts under a 2016
                   frame agreement with ÖBB valued at €[…], and existing options for
                   […]trains;
           (ii)    the delivery of […] Talent 3 trains as part of the 2019 contract with
                   STA, valued at €[…], as well as options for […] additional trains and
                   [potential contract];
           (iii)   the delivery of […] trains as part of the 2016 contract with Abellio,
                   valued at €[…];2
           (iv)    the delivery of […] trains as part of the 2017 contract with Netinera,
                   valued at €[…]; and
           (v)     the delivery of […] trains as part of the 2017 contract with SWEG,
                   valued at €[…].
    (h)    Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area Divestment. Bombardier offers, at the option of
           the Purchaser, to sell or lease3 the production and services areas covering
           [square metres] (Hall 221) and warehouse (Hall 222) of its Hennigsdorf site
           located in Germany, consisting of: (i) engineering and manufacturing facilities
           as will be equipped by Bombardier during the Transition Period (as defined
1   Subject to customer consent rights. Backlog is defined as the total order intake value of trains
    remaining to be delivered as of end of FY19. Bombardier has since delivered […] trains to Abellio.
2   As of end of FY19. Bombardier has since delivered […] of the […] trains to Abellio.
3   On the terms (including duration) and conditions which will be agreed between the Purchaser and
    Bombardier.
                                                   47
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---     Procurement Specifications
2.3 Bombardier will offer to make available to the Purchaser the build-to-print
    procurement specifications for externally sourced key components and sub-
    components which Bombardier sources from third-party suppliers for use in the
    Talent 3 Platform.
2.4 Bombardier will use commercially reasonable efforts to:
    (c)    transfer or assign all contracts, agreements or relationships and understandings;
           or with third-party component suppliers relating to the components specific to
           the Talent 3 Platform for which Bombardier relies on third-party suppliers
           (subject to supplier consent), including in relation to available stock relating to
           the Talent 3; or
    (d)    support the Purchaser in negotiations with third-party component suppliers to
           obtain similar terms and conditions for the procurement of components specific
           to the Talent 3 Platform for which Bombardier relies on third-party suppliers.
2.5 Absent supplier consent, Bombardier will continue to procure the relevant
    components from third-party suppliers for the duration of the Talent 3 Contracts and
    transfer the components to the Purchaser at cost to the extent allowed in Bombardier’s
    existing procurement agreements with the third-party suppliers.
2.6 If there is any asset or personnel which is not covered by paragraph 2 of this Schedule
    but which is both used (exclusively or not) in the Divestment Business and necessary
    for the continued viability and competitiveness of the Divestment Business, that asset
    adequate substitute or support (including supply or service agreements) will be
    offered to the Purchaser, which will oversee the process.
3.  The Talent 3 Contracts and Associated Backlog consists of the following:
3.1 Bombardier offers to transfer, subject to the customer consent, all existing rolling
    stock contracts for Talent 3 with Abellio, Netinera, and SWEG in Germany, ÖBB in
    Austria, and STA in Italy, including all backlog and options (“Talent 3 Contracts”):11
    (a)    the delivery of […]trains as part of […] supply contracts under a 2016 frame
           agreement with ÖBB valued at €[…], and existing options for […] trainsets;
    (b)    the delivery of […] Talent 3 trains as part of the 2019 contract with STA, valued
           at €[…], existing options for […] trains and [potential contract]
    (c)    the delivery of […] trains as part of the 2016 contract with Abellio, valued at
           €[…];12
    (d)    The delivery of […] trains as part of the 2017 contract with Netinera, valued at
           €[…]; and
    (e)    The delivery of […] trains as part of the 2017 contract with SWEG, valued at
11  As of end of FY19.
12  As of end of FY19. Bombardier has since delivered […] of the […] trains to the customer.
                                                   50
 ---pagebreak---            €[…].
3.2 Absent customer consent, […]
4.  The Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area Divestment consists of the following:
4.1 The Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area Divestment will include, at the option of the
    Purchaser, the sale or lease of (i) the Talent-3 specific carve-out of Bombardier’s
    Hennigsdorf site (“Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area”) (Germany) and (ii) personnel;
    subject to the Carve Out Assets described in Section 7 below:
4.2 The combination of the Talent 3 Platform Divestment and the Hennigsdorf Carve-Out
    Area Divestment will allow the Purchaser to effectively manufacture, test, and
    homologate the Talent 3 Platform.
    Assets and equipment
4.3 The Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area Divestment assets located at the Hennigsdorf site
    include dedicated facilities for production and services areas covering [square metres]
    (Hall 221) and a warehouse hosting more than 80 workplaces (Hall 222).
4.4 The assets include: (i) warehousing and office facilities and assets; (ii) engineering
    facilities and assets (incl. the necessary Bombardier proprietary computer systems
    used in the development and maintenance of the Talent 3 Platform); and
    (iii) manufacturing facilities and assets for rolling stock (incl. pre-assembly, fitting,
    train final assembly and homologation) as will be equipped by Bombardier for Talent
    3 production during a 12-36 month transition period (“Transition Period”) including:
    (a)    the transfer of Talent-3 specific machineries to the Hennigsdorf Carve-Out
           Area;
    (b)    the transfer of Talent 3-specific jigs, equipment and toolings to the Hennigsdorf
           Carve-Out Area;
    (c)    the establishment of a fully equipped line for fit-out 2 operations; and
    (d)    the building of a partition wall between production lines, including the
           separation of office building.
4.5 Bombardier offers to, continue manufacturing the Talent 3 as a subcontractor to the
    Purchaser during the Transition Period in compliance with the delivery schedules
    agreed with the customers. The subsupply for the Transition Period will occur on
    current commercial terms, and Bombardier would offer the service at zero margin.
    Personnel
4.6 The Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area Divestment includes the transfer of personnel
    experienced in the engineering and manufacturing of the Talent 3 Platform, including
    (i) a team of up to […] product engineers and specialists specific to the Talent 3
    Platform; (ii) a team of […] Talent 3-specific TCMS IT engineers; and (iii) at the
                                                 51
 ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak--- 5.  Supply and Additional Agreements consist of the following:
    Supply agreements
5.1 At the option of the Purchaser, Bombardier offers to provide the following supply
    agreements:
    (a)     Supply agreements for: subsytems that are not specific to the Talent 3
            Platform:
           o Assembled bogies and EMU and BEMU propulsion, including engineering
               support to complete subsystem outstanding design-work for ongoing and/or
               future bids;
           o Engineering support for carbodies to complete subsystem outstanding
               design-work for ongoing and/or future bids;
           o TCMS circuit boards for Talent 3, including engineering support on the
               integration of Talent 3-specific application with for TCMS middleware for
               ongoing projects and update/bug fixes on the middleware to the extent that
               will be developed.
    (b)     Supply agreements in relation to the [Confidential upgrade]
           o Components and subsystems necessary for [Confidential upgrade], for
               components and subsystems designed by Bombardier and which do not fall
               under the Hennigsdorf Carve Out Area Divestment’s competencies.
5.2 Supply agreements for the purpose of fulfilling obligations or potential options under
    the existing Talent 3 Contracts will be concluded for a duration equal to the duration
    of the underlying agreements with the customers. For these agreements, Bombardier
    will offer to supply the relevant components and subsystems to the Purchaser based
    on its existing internal pricing arrangements.
5.3 Supply agreements concerning trains to be supplied for new tenders will be limited to
    new tenders awarded within five years of Closing and will last for a duration of three
    years from initial purchase under the relevant supply agreement. For these
    agreements, Bombardier will offer to supply the relevant components and subsystems
    to the Purchaser at cost.
    Additional agreements
5.4 At the option of the Purchaser, Bombardier also offers to provide the following
    agreements on exact terms and conditions to be agreed with the Purchaser based on
    the Purchaser’s capabilities and needs to allow the viability of the Talent 3 Platform
    Divestment:
    (a)     Testing services and track access to existing testing services and track
            infrastructure at the Hennigsdorf plant. At the option of the Purchaser,
            Bombardier will provide the Purchaser with testing services together with the
            possibility to access the track infrastructure within 10 years of Closing. The
            cost for testing services will be calculated based on Bombardier’s internal
            project cost. The Purchaser will have the right at any point in time to move
                                               53
 ---pagebreak---            trains through the retained Bombardier area to reach the testing facilities and
           the public infrastructure;
    (b)    The sale or lease of equipment for bogies/wheelsets final assembly and car
           body erection to be placed into a suitable industrial facility in the Greater
           Berlin Area;
    (c)    Talent 1 and Talent 2 platform-specific documentation including platform
           description and all platform-specific mechanical and electrical drawings,
           corresponding installed-bases, together with existing service agreements and
           potential liabilities.
    Monitoring trustee
5.5 The Monitoring Trustee appointed for the Commitments will monitor Bombardier’s
    compliance with the Supply and Additional Agreements for their duration.
6.  [Confidential upgrade]:
6.1 […].
6.2 […].
    (a)    […]
    (b)    […]
7.  The Talent 3 Divestment Business shall not include any right, title and/or interest
    in:
    (a)    any resources, assets, personnel, and specific industrial means and equipment
           residing in Bombardier’s Hennigsdorf plant, other than expressly included in
           the above and that will be moved into the Hennigsdorf Carve-Out Area during
           the Transition Period;
    (b)    rolling stock testing and track infrastructure located at the Hennigsdorf plan;
    (c)    any production assets, manufacturing units, or R&D facilities, other than
           expressly included above;
    (d)    tangible and intangible assets (including intellectual property rights) which do
           not contribute to the current operation of the Talent 3 Divestment Business;
    (e)    tangible and intangible assets (including intellectual property rights) that are
           shared between the Talent 3 Divestment Business and Bombardier’s retained
           business other than as expressly explained above;
    (f)    any IP, know-how, copyright relating to components that Purchaser might
           procure from Bombardier
    (g)    any personnel of the Combined Entity, other than expressly included above;
                                               54
 ---pagebreak--- (h) Bombardier’s supply agreements relating to non-critical, commodity, non-
    rolling stock specific components;
(i) all books and records to be retained pursuant to any statute, rule, regulation or
    ordinance, provided that Bombardier will provide copies of such documents
    necessary of the Talent 3 Divestment Business to the Purchaser upon request;
(j) general books of account and books of original entry that comprise Combined
    Entity or any of its Affiliated undertakings’ permanent accounting or tax
    records provided that Combined Entity will provide copies of such documents
    necessary for the Talent 3 Divestment Business to the Purchaser, upon request;
    and
(k) any other rights, assets or interests not expressly included.
                                     ***
                                         55
 ---pagebreak--- [Confidential annex]
            56
 ---pagebreak---                      Case M.9779 – Alstom/Bombardier Transportation
                COMMITMENTS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
 Pursuant to Article 6(2), of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the “Merger
 Regulation”), Alstom S.A. (“Alstom”, or the “Notifying Party”) hereby enters into the
 following Commitments (the “Commitments”) vis-à-vis the European Commission (the
 “Commission”) with a view to rendering its proposed acquisition of sole control over
 Bombardier Transportation (Investment) UK Ltd, the holding entity for Bombardier
 Transportation (“Bombardier Transportation” and, together with Alstom, the “Parties”),
 the global rail solutions division of Bombardier Inc. (“Bombardier”) (the “Proposed
 Transaction”) compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA
 Agreement.
 This text shall be interpreted in light of the Commission’s decision pursuant to Article
 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation to declare the Concentration compatible with the internal
 market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (the “Decision”), in the general
 framework of European Union law, in particular in light of the Merger Regulation, and by
 reference to the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regulation
 (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (the “Remedies
 Notice”).
 The provisions in the Commitments as to the appointment of the Monitoring Trustee shall
 take effect upon the date of entry into force of the Decision (the “Effective Date”),
 although the obligations to supply Purchasers and ProRail (as explained below) will only
 take effect as of completion of the Proposed Transaction (the “Closing Date”) provided
 that if the completion of the Proposed Transaction does not take place for whatever reason
 and is thereby abandoned, the Notifying Party shall not be bound by these Commitments.
                                        The OBU Commitments
A.      DEFINITIONS
1.      For the purpose of these Commitments, the following terms shall have the following
        meaning:
        Class B: standalone on-board equipment for an Automatic Train Protection (“ATP”)
        system in use in the EEA other than ETCS, a “Legacy ATP System”.
        Complete STM/Class B Request: a request comprising all required information
        necessary to undertake the required work and to provide the necessary and accurate
        information, including specifically:
            A detailed description of the planning for deliveries;
            The quantities needed and the services requested;
                                                   57
 ---pagebreak---            Description of the project for which the inputs are requested from Alstom,
            including the necessary technical specification of the EVC and necessary details
            of the train types concerned;
           Necessary specification of the interfaces and information communicated by the
            ETCS OBU EVC; and
           Confirmation that no additional requirements will be exported to the STM or
            Class B.
      Conflict of Interest: any conflict of interest that impairs the Monitoring Trustee’s
      objectivity and independence in discharging its duties under the Commitments.
      Fast-Track Dispute Resolution Procedure: the procedure provided for in Sections E
      and F of these Commitments.
      Infrastructure Manager: manager of rail infrastructure.
      Initial Quotation: quotation based on industry standard assumptions made if a
      Complete STM/Class B request is not provided, non-binding if those assumptions are
      ultimately not validated in that particular case.
      Interoperability Documentation: copies of all existing documentation necessary to
      interface a Purchaser’s ETCS system with Bombardier’s TCMS, including non-
      exhaustively, when available: FFF-Interface Specifications, drawing(s), interface
      protocol, and other specifications allowing the identification of the necessary signals
      on the train schematics and cabling terminals, copies of homologation certificates and
      safety case, as well as any reasonably necessary ancillary technical clarifications
      which are necessary to ensure interface between Bombardier’s TCMS and Purchasers’
      ETCS systems.1
      Interface Documentation: copies of all available information, documentation and
      specifications assisting Purchasers to interface an ETCS OBU system with
      Bombardier’s Class Bs, including non-exhaustively: copies of certification and/or
      homologation documents, in its latest status, as well as available operating manual,
      installation specifications, application conditions, training specifications, generic and
      specific application safety cases, and maintenance manuals, and FFF-Interface
      Specifications.2
      Master Agreement: an agreement substantially based on the draft agreement
      provided in Annex IV that will be offered by Alstom upon request.
      Major Obsolescence: obsolescence that is not Minor Obsolescence.
      Minor Obsolescence: arises when components with same mechanical and electrical
      interfaces are available on the market and no mechanical or electrical redesign are
1 For the avoidance of doubt, this shall not include a right to documents or data that are not reasonably
  necessary to interface an ETCS OBU with the TCMS (including transfer of source code or other intellectual
  property concerning the hardware or other design intellectual property rights relating to the TCMS).
2 For the avoidance of doubt, this shall not include a right to transfer of any source code or other intellectual
  property rights concerning the hardware or other design intellectual property rights relating to the STM or
  Class B.
                                                          58
 ---pagebreak---         needed (same form, fit and function of the replacement parts); and there is no product
        type test or certification to perform.
        Monitoring Trustee: one or more natural or legal person(s) who is/are approved by
        the Commission and appointed by Alstom, and who has/have the duty to monitor
        compliance with the Commitments in accordance with Section D and Annex III.
        Non-Standard TCMS: TCMS that do not have a train communication network based
        on a standardized interface (MVB, Ethernet TRDP) or not based on Bombardier’s
        [Confidential information on Bombardier’s platform] platform.
        OBU Commitments: set of commitments comprising the STMs and Class B OBUs
        Commitments, the TCMS Commitments, and the Netherlands Legacy OBU
        Commitments.
        Purchasers: ETCS OBU suppliers or other suppliers responsible for the execution of
        an ETCS OBU project, such as vehicle manufacturers or vehicle integrators.
        Required TCMS Information: the services requested; a description of the planning
        for activities; and electrical and functional specifications of the ETCS on-board
        system, including architecture documents with interfaces towards TCMS (functional
        and electrical), to the extent this is strictly necessary to allow Alstom to assess
        adaptations needed on the TCMS as well as modifications to be made by the
        signalling supplier to the ETCS OBU system.
        Standard TCMS: TCMS with a train communication network based on a
        standardized interface (MVB, Ethernet TRDP) and using a Bombardier [Confidential
        information on Bombardier’s platform] platform.
        STM: specific transmission module, a specific configuration of a legacy ATP which
        allow direct interface with ETCS OBUs.
        TCMS: Digital Train Control & Management Systems.
C.      COMMITMENTS
2.      Alstom will provide, to any Purchaser, in a timely manner and on fair, reasonable, and
        non-discriminatory terms, the following, for use in the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK:
             Supply of Bombardier’s available Class Bs or STMs;3
             Technical support for integration of newly purchased Class Bs or STMs with the
              Purchaser’s ETCS OBU or rolling stock on which it is to be installed. In
              particular:
                      o Technical support for integration of newly purchased Class Bs or
                          STMs covers support for the interface of Class Bs or STMs with ETCS
3  All references to Class B, On-board ATP legacy systems, or STMs refer to existing Bombardier solutions
   on the Closing Date, provided that for the Netherlands, Alstom retains the option to offer, at its sole
   discretion, the Alstom Class B ATB-EG solution instead of the Bombardier solution. Alstom also commits
   to offer its ATB-NL Class B to cover the non-electrified part of the Dutch network.
                                                         59
 ---pagebreak---                            OBU but shall not be constructed as extending to support for the
                           engineering of the interface as per ETCS OBU specifications.
            Interface Documentation for Class Bs for retrofit projects that require a
             Purchaser’s new ETCS OBU to interface with already-installed Class B
             equipment;
             (together, the “STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments”)
            Interoperability Documentation and technical support for modifications to
             Bombardier’s TCMS for the execution of retrofit ETCS OBU projects in the
             EEA, Switzerland, and the UK as explained in more detail below (together, the
             “TCMS Commitments”).4
3.      In addition, Alstom will offer to enter into a frame contract with the Dutch
        Infrastructure manager to supply the Alstom Class B (ATB-EG) for a period of twenty
        (20) years substantially on terms outlined in Annex B (the “Netherlands Legacy
        OBU Commitments”).
4.      The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments will apply for twenty (20) years from the
        Closing Date or until the ERTMS roll out is completed (whichever is shorter).
5.      The TCMS Commitments will apply for twelve (12) years from the Closing Date or
        until the ERTMS roll out is completed (whichever is shorter).
6.      The Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments will apply for a period of twenty (20)
        years from the Closing Date.
7.      A Fast Track Dispute Resolution Procedure (including pre-dispute escalation and
        expert resolution) and Monitoring Trustee for a period of twelve (12) years and fast-
        track dispute resolution via arbitration for the remainder of the Commitments will
        ensure compliance.
        1.       STMS AND CLASS B OBUS
8.      Scope of the STMs and Class B Commitments. Alstom will offer, to any Purchaser,
        on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, the following, for use in the EEA,
        Switzerland, and the UK:
            STMs. A supply agreement for STMs for both retrofit projects and new rolling
             stock (ATB-EG, LZB-ES, SHP, TBL1+ related to the Netherlands, Spain,
             Poland, and Belgium). The supply of such STMs will include reasonably
             necessary documentation to facilitate integration with a Purchaser’s ETCS OBU.
             Where redesign of an STM is required (due to lack of availability of third-party
             components (i.e., obsolescence ) or need to renew the industrial file due to
4  The TCMS Commitments exclude (i) anything relating to TCMS which is sold to a third-party in other
   remedy packages for the purpose of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) TCMS supplied by third parties for
   Bombardier trains or modified by third parties, with the exception of the case where the supply of TCMS by
   the third party was done upon request by Bombardier and within the overall responsibility of the vehicle or
   if the property rights are within Bombardier.
                                                          60
 ---pagebreak---                absence of regular purchase orders leading to no manufacturing having taken
               place for [...]), Alstom will offer to conduct such redesign provided that it is
               compensated by the Infrastructure Manager of the relevant country or countries
               (consistently with their legal obligation under EU law to maintain the availability
               of STMs) or by a Purchaser on an amortized basis (on the terms outlined in
               Annex A).
                o     Specific provisions for the Netherlands and Belgium:
                           If necessary, Bombardier’s STM ATB-EG can be either redesigned, or
                            substituted by Alstom ATB-EG Class B at Alstom’s sole discretion.
                            Alstom also commits to offer its ATB-NL Class B to cover the non-
                            electrified part of the Dutch network.5
                           [Confidential information on Bombardier STMS in the Netherlands and
                            Belgium] and the commitments are subject to continued availability of
                            that hardware. Alstom will make reasonable commercial efforts to
                            ensure such continued availability until the ETCS OBU roll-out is
                            complete in Belgium.
              Class Bs. A supply agreement for available Class Bs (i.e., PZB) on cost-plus
               terms as set out in Annex A.
              Technical support to help integrate an STM / Class B with the Purchaser’s
               ETCS OBU or rolling stock as part of a retrofit or new rolling stock order.6
9.       Interface Documentation on a standalone basis for existing Class Bs where required
         for retrofit projects that require interfacing a new ETCS OBU with already-installed
         Class B equipment (i.e., existing Interface Documentation for Convel (Portugal), JKB
         (Finland), PZB (Austria, Germany, Croatia, Romania and Slovenia)7, and SHP
         (Poland)).8
10.      Portugal and Finland, special provision. In Portugal and Finland, [Confidential
         information on Bombardier’ solution in Portugal and Finland]. This is the case
         because there is an alternative STM developed for Finland (from Hitachi-Ansaldo)
         and because in Portugal, the age of the product and lack of orders for many years
         [Confidential information on Bombardier’ solution in Portugal]. As such, Alstom
         will commit to provide available Interface Documentation for the Convel (Portugal) to
5   ATB NL [Confidential details on ATB NL]combines ATB EG and ATB NG and replaces [Confidential
    details on ATB NL]. For the avoidance of doubt, this solution is not an integrated solution (i.e., has no
    ETCS OBU functionality).
6   Technical support for integration of newly purchased Class Bs or STMs covers support for the installation
    and interface requirements for the ETCS OBU and rolling stock but shall not be construed as extending to
    support for the engineering of the interface as per the rolling stock specifications or installation activities
    into rolling stock.
7        The scenario where trains are already equipped with a standalone legacy OBU and need to be
         connected to the ETCS OBU or to operate in parallel is no longer accepted for new trains nor for
         retrofit projects in Germany. Alstom will, however, offer the PZB for markets outside Germany, or
         projects in Germany for which PZB only is required such as regional trains with no need for ETCS.
8   [Confidential information on available Bombardier’s interface documentation].
                                                          61
 ---pagebreak---          ensure that other suppliers are placed on a comparable footing if the Portuguese
         Infrastructure Manager were to issue an open tender for a new Convel solution. If
         considered necessary by the Infrastructure Manager despite the presence of an
         alternative STM already existing in Finland (from Hitachi-Ansaldo), Alstom would
         also offer available Interface Documentation for the JKB (Finland). Pricing for such
         documentation to be approved by the Monitoring Trustee and Commission.
11.      Table 1 below provides an overview of the availability of Bombardier’s Class Bs /
         STMs and how they will be addressed by the STMs and Class B OBUs
         Commitments:
           Table 1: [Confidential information on available Bombardier’ solutions]9 10 11 12 13
12.      As the STM and OBU Commitments are aimed at ensuring competition in the market
         for supply of ETCS OBUs, the STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments exclude
         STMs where they are, at the Closing Date, an integrated product with an ETCS
         OBU.14
13.      Principal terms of supply. Alstom will enter into a Master Agreement with
         Purchasers substantially based on the draft agreement attached as Annex IV (the
         “Master Agreement”), as well as individual transaction documents for each order.
         The following provides an overview of the principal conditions under which access
         will be given.
14.      Pricing of Interface Documentation, supply of Class Bs, STMs, and services will all
         be based on the conditions outlined in Annex A.
15.      Responsiveness and co-operation:
             Alstom will enter into a Master Agreement on request and will provide quotations
              for deliveries relating to specific projects or requirements for STMs / Class B
              systems within thirty (30) working days of a Complete STM/Class B Request.15
             If a written request does not fulfil the requirements of a Complete STM/Class B
              Request, Alstom will inform the Purchaser and request complete information
              within ten (10) working days.
9   […].
10  […].
11  […].
12  […].
13  […].
14  This affects the PZB/ETCS, LZB/ETCS or ATC-2/ETCS solutions. Alstom will offer a supply agreement
    for the PZB Class B (relevant for Austria, Croatia, Germany, Romania, and Slovenia) for both retrofit
    projects and new rolling stock.
15  For the purposes of these Commitments, working day or business day shall mean a day on which banking
    institutions are open for regular business in France, which shall not be a Saturday, a Sunday, a legal
    holiday, or other day on which banking institutions are authorized or obligated by law to close in France.
                                                           62
 ---pagebreak---  In any event, if a Complete STM/Class B Request is not provided by the
  Purchaser, Alstom will, within thirty (30) working days of receipt of any written
  request that at least specifies the STM or Class B requested and the quantity
  thereof, provide an Initial Quotation based on industry standard assumptions
  (including as to the use of standard interfaces such as Profibus). This Initial
  Quotation will be binding on Alstom if the assumptions are validated once a
  Complete STM/Class B Request is provided. The quotation will be subject to
  revision if a Complete STM/Class B Request subsequently reveals that the
  assumptions on which the original quotation was based are not valid.
 The Master Agreement shall include appropriate provisions ensuring that
  Purchasers would receive any additional reasonably necessary information
  requested or an adequate reasoned response explaining why the information is not
  available within twelve (12) working days from receipt by Alstom of a written
  request.
 The Purchaser shall accept, reject, or propose a modification to the offer by
  sending a written notice of its acceptance, rejection, or proposed reasonable
  modification to Alstom.
 Delivery of the product and services offer under the STMs and Class B OBUs
  Commitments will be made in a timely manner and according to a predefined
  schedule, in line with reasonable end-customer requirements (frozen at the time of
  a purchase order filed in good time) and standard industry practice.
 Liquidated damages, for late delivery by Alstom, if any, shall be limited to […]per
  delayed week and a maximum of […] of the value of the delayed equipment.
 Specific performance (“exécution forcée”) will be available in case of non-
  performance by either party of its obligations in accordance with French Law.
 Liquidated damages, other than for late delivery, are to be agreed in line with
  standard market practice, substantially in accordance with the terms contained in
  Annex IV.
 If Alstom anticipates Major Obsolescence of STMs / Class Bs as delivered, it will
  inform the Purchasers as soon as possible. In that case, Alstom will send a last
  buy order notice to the Purchaser with a minimum period of six (6) months to
  allow for additional orders.
 The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments concern existing equipment, based
  on the existing safety case. Alstom will not support changes that result in
  re-opening the safety case, changes to the core product, or take responsibility for
  higher level integration and safety cases. Where an STM is redesigned for
  obsolescence reasons, the relevant product-specific new safety case and associated
  design documentation will be produced.
 Any request or question concerning the STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments
  should be first addressed to the CRM as defined in section 3 below.
 The Purchaser represents and warrants that it will use information and products
  supplied by Alstom exclusively to supply the specific contract identified in the
  written request.
                                         63
 ---pagebreak---              Alstom represents and warrants that it will use information supplied by the
              Purchaser exclusively to supply the specific contract identified in the written
              request.
             Any dispute arising in connection with the STMs and Class B OBUs
              Commitments shall be governed by (a) the Fast Track Dispute Resolution
              Procedure contained in Sections E and F; and (b) in accordance with French Law.
16.     Prior to any disclosure of information to the potential Purchaser, the said Purchaser
        shall enter into a confidentiality agreement with Alstom substantially in the form
        provided in Annex II.
17.     Non-circumvention. Alstom undertakes not to circumvent or attempt to circumvent
        these Commitments by deliberately terminating availability of Bombardier STMs or
        Class B’s covered by these Commitments without offering an alternative. For the
        avoidance of doubt, where STMs or Class B’s face obsolescence or require redesign
        in the ordinary course of business, this will not be regarded as a circumvention of the
        Commitments but will be addressed according to the provisions on redesign contained
        herein.
        2.        TCMS
18.     With respect to TCMS, Alstom will offer, to any Purchaser, the following, for use in
        the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK:
             Interoperability Documentation to enable interface connections to pair TCMS
              installed on the Bombardier’s rolling stock including that supplied in consortium
              where Bombardier supplied the TCMS for the relevant train for use in the EEA,
              Switzerland, and the UK and Purchasers’ ETCS OBU, on fair, reasonable, and
              non-discriminatory terms including as defined in Annex A.
             Where adaptations to the TCMS, as defined below, are required to interface with
              the Purchaser’s ETCS OBU, Alstom commits to provide necessary technical
              support for the Purchaser to implement the interfaces with TCMS installed on
              Bombardier’s rolling stock for operation in the EEA, Switzerland, and the UK on
              a cost-plus basis (and subject to the limitations described below).
19.     More specifically, Alstom will take the following steps to support the installation of
        Purchasers’ ETCS OBUs on Bombardier’s rolling stock.16
20.     Interoperability Documentation and estimates for basic services. Within thirty (30)
        working days of any written request for quotation with regard to Interoperability
        Documentation or technical support for TCMS modifications in connection with a bid
16  The TCMS Commitments cover Bombardier’s rolling stock in operation in the EEA, Switzerland, and the
    UK. For the avoidance of doubt, the TCMS Commitments are limited to digital TCMS (or informatics-bus-
    based TCMS) as the integration with wiring TCMS can be successfully managed by ETCS OBU integrator
    without support from the original supplier. The TCMS Commitments exclude (i) anything relating to
    TCMS which is sold to a third-party in other remedy packages for the purpose of the Proposed Transaction;
    and (ii) TCMS supplied by third parties for Bombardier trains or modified by third parties. In any event, the
    responsibility for the homologation and safety case of the modified rolling stock will remain on the
    Purchaser.
                                                         64
 ---pagebreak---         for an ETCS OBU retrofit project on Bombardier’s rolling stock, Alstom will provide
        a quote for the following:
            Delivery of any necessary and existing interface specifications and
             documentation that exist on the relevant rolling stock, including the Train Wide
             Functions;17
            Sufficient rights to allow the Purchaser to use the documents and information for
             bid preparation and project execution including the right to (i) disclose those
             information and documents to external partners (e.g., consortium partners,
             engineering partners etc.) on a need to know basis and (ii) to use such documents
             and information for the purpose to prepare a bid and to execute the project;
            [Confidential information on Bombardier’s intellectual property rights];18
            A technical meeting to determine what, if any, TCMS modifications are required
             to enable interoperability of the requesting Purchaser’s ETCS OBU and the
             relevant Bombardier’s TCMS; and
            Technical support for modifications on Standard TCMS and demonstration that
             the modifications made correctly interface to the Standard TCMS (i.e., joint test
             on the train to validate the proper implementation the interfaces).
21.     Quotation for technical support for modifications on Non-Standard TCMS and
        adaptation of documents for vehicle re-homologation. Within five (5) working days
        of a written request, Alstom will propose a date for a technical meeting to clarify any
        requirement related to required technical support for modifications.
22.     Following that meeting, within a further forty (40) working days (with Alstom making
        all commercially reasonable efforts to reply within thirty (30) working days if
        possible), and subject to receipt of the Required TCMS Information, Alstom will offer
        a quotation for:
            Technical support for modifications to Non-Standard TCMS; and
            Demonstration that the modifications made correctly interface to the Non-
             Standard TCMS (i.e., joint test on the train to validate the proper implementation
             of the interfaces, vehicle regression tests (multi-traction, mixed coupling, etc.)).
23.     Provision of quotations subject to receipt of written requests. Alstom will only offer
        a binding quotation for documents and services under the TCMS Commitments on
        receipt of the Required TCMS Information.
24.     Where required, Alstom will provide technical support / consultation with
        regard to TCMS modifications as explained in these Commitments. In particular:
            Adaptation and testing support. Alstom offers to support Purchasers regarding
             all necessary adaptation and/or configuration works to implement an interface
             with the Purchaser’s ETCS OBU on trains equipped with Bombardier’s TCMS.
17  Sample documentation that will be provided to the signalling supplier to ensure compatibility on electrical
    and protocol level are provided in Annex I.1 to Annex I.7.
18 [Confidential information on Bombardier’s intellectual property rights].
                                                        65
 ---pagebreak---          Alstom will offer to jointly perform a test on the train to validate the proper
         implementation of the interfaces. This support will be offered on a cost-plus
         basis as defined in Annex A.
        Necessary modifications to the TCMS to interface with the ETCS OBU.
         Alstom will provide technical support for TCMS modifications that must be done
         on the TCMS side in order to interface Bombardier’s TCMS with a Purchaser’s
         ETCS OBU (i.e., interface descriptions and the function description to be
         implemented in a TCMS).
        TCMS supplied by Bombardier, unless designed or modified by a third
         party. Where the TCMS on the relevant Bombardier rolling stock was provided
         by a supplier not controlled by Bombardier, Alstom will provide the Purchaser
         with contact details for that supplier (where available) and Interoperability
         Documentation to the extent that it is within Bombardier’s possession and subject
         to the relevant third-party’s consent.
        Exclusion of divested TCMS. The TCMS Commitments exclude anything
         relating to TCMS which is sold to a third-party in other remedy packages for the
         purpose of the Proposed Transaction (or where train types rely on TCMS systems
         wholly or partially divested as a result of the Proposed Transaction).
        Compliance with good practice and timeline. Alstom undertakes to carry out
         the technical support for TCMS modifications required to interface with an ETCS
         OBU, in accordance with good industry practice, including as regards timing and
         responsiveness. Alstom commits to provide support for the necessary adaptations
         on Bombardier’s TCMS within a reasonable period of time (usually not
         exceeding thirty-six (36) months after receiving the complete set of information
         needed from the Purchaser).3
25. Homologation support. Alstom commits to provide, the Purchaser, on a cost-plus
    basis, necessary support with obtaining homologation approval from the competent
    regulatory bodies. In particular, Alstom will provide the Purchaser or the regulatory
    body with the relevant information requested by that regulatory body, at the
    Purchaser’s cost. Support for recertification will be limited to the TCMS compliance
    with CENELEC standards.
26. Responsibility for homologation. Alstom will neither be responsible for the new
    safety case of any train nor for the homologation of any trains that will result from
    such modifications. Alstom’s liability will be limited to the implementation of the
    interface and the train functions that will be specified by the Purchaser. The
    Purchaser will remain responsible for homologation and for safety as it relates to
    ETCS OBUs, but all necessary certificates and documents relating to the TCMS that
    are necessary to ensure a re-homologation of the vehicle that can only be provided by
    Alstom shall be so provided on a cost plus basis (subject to cost structure for services
    in Annex A).
27. Refusal of work, rectification, termination, penalties. If the Purchaser cannot
    accept a deliverable due to lack of performance or delay, the Purchaser will notify
    Alstom in writing within seven (7) to ten (10) working days.
        Alstom will provide rectified, correct, and complete deliverables back for
         acceptance within twenty-five (25) working days.
                                                66
 ---pagebreak---         If Alstom is not in a position to provide expected standard of deliverables within
         twenty-five (25) working days, the Purchaser has the right to terminate the
         contract and to perform the work itself or source it from another supplier (at the
         Purchaser’s cost).
        Liquidated damages, for late delivery by Alstom, if any, shall be limited to
         […]per delayed week and a maximum of […] of price charged.
        Specific performance (“exécution forcée”) will be available in case of non-
         performance by either party of its obligations in accordance with French Law.
        If the Purchaser decides to transfer the work to another supplier, both parties will
         cooperate to achieve effective handover.
28. Close Cooperation. Alstom’s obligations under the TCMS Commitments are subject
    to the Purchaser providing Alstom with all information reasonably required to
    undertake workarounds and to provide the necessary Interoperability Documentation,
    including technical clarifications and assistance under the same conditions as Alstom.
    The Purchaser’s written request shall include all the mechanical, electrical, and
    functional specifications of the system to be integrated, including architecture
    documents with interfaces towards TCMS (functional and electrical), to the extent it is
    strictly necessary to allow Alstom to assess the necessary adaptations on the TCMS as
    well as on the signalling systems.
29. Proper use of information and products. Alstom and the Purchaser represent and
    warrant that they will use information supplied by the other party exclusively to
    supply the specific contract identified in the written request. The Purchaser represents
    and warrants that they will use the products supplied by Alstom exclusively to supply
    the specific contract identified in the written request.
30. Prior to any disclosure of Interoperability Documentation to a potential Purchaser,
    such Purchaser shall enter into a confidentiality agreement with Alstom substantially
    in the form provided in Annex II.
                                                 67
 ---pagebreak---     3.      NETHERLANDS LEGACY OBU COMMITMENTS
31. In addition, Alstom will enter into a frame contract with the Dutch Infrastructure
    manager to supply the Alstom Class B (ATB-EG) and / or related interface
    information for a period of twenty (20) years from the Closing Date substantially on
    terms outlined in Annex B.
D.  COMMITMENTS RELATIONSHIP MANAGER
32. To facilitate dealings with requests from Purchasers and ProRail, Alstom will create
    the position of EEA-wide Commitments Relationship Manager (the “CRM”). The
    CRM will act as a contact point for Purchasers and ProRail, and will coordinate issues
    internally within Alstom. The CRM will be charged with assisting Purchasers and
    ProRail in resolving any questions, issues, or concerns regarding the OBU
    Commitments.
33. All requests in connection with the OBU Commitments must be directed to the CRM
    and any communications not directed to the CRM will not be taken into account to
    determine whether time limits in the OBU Commitments have been complied with.
34. After the Closing Date, Alstom will give adequate publicity (i.e., publishing on its
    website or on such other channels as per current market practice) to the main elements
    of the OBU commitments and in particular should communicate promptly and clearly
    to the market the role and the contact details of the CRM and of the Monitoring
    Trustee.
E.  MONITORING TRUSTEE
35. Alstom shall appoint a Monitoring Trustee to carry out the functions specified in the
    OBU Commitments for a Monitoring Trustee for a period of twelve (12) years from
    the Closing Date. Alstom commits not to close the Proposed Transaction before the
    appointment of a Monitoring Trustee. The procedure for appointment of the
    Monitoring Trustee is contained in Annex III.
36. At the end of the twelve (12) year period, the appointment and the functions of the
    Monitoring Trustee can be extended for a further period of up to eight (8) years. The
    decision in this respect will be taken by the Commission, upon the receipt of
    submissions from Alstom and the Monitoring Trustee, to be provided no later than
    three months before the expiration of the twelve (12) year period, in due consideration
    of the situation at that time and the functioning of the OBU Commitments.
F.  FAST TRACK DISPUTE RESOLUTION: PRE-DISPUTE ESCALATION AND EXPERT
37. At the option of a Purchaser and ProRail, any disputes which may arise between either
    or both Parties and the Purchaser or ProRail relating to the OBU Commitments and
    the agreements implementing the OBU Commitments will be subject to a fast-track
    dispute resolution procedure (the “Fast-Track Dispute Resolution Procedure”)
    described in this Section E and Section F.
                                                68
 ---pagebreak---     a.       PRE-DISPUTE ESCALATION
38. If Alstom or a Purchaser, or Customer (each a “Company” and jointly the
    “Companies”) wishes to avail itself of the Fast Track Dispute Resolution Procedure
    (the “Requesting Party”), it must notify the other Company in writing (with a copy to
    the Monitoring Trustee) setting out in detail the reasons leading that Company to
    believe that the other Company is failing to comply with the OBU Commitments (the
    “Notice”).
39. The Companies will attempt in fair dealing and good faith to resolve all differences of
    opinion and settle all disputes that may arise through cooperation and consultation
    within a reasonable period of time which shall not exceed fifteen (15) business days
    after receipt of the Notice, which may be extended by mutual consent. The
    Monitoring Trustee shall present its own proposal for resolving the dispute within 10
    business days after receipt of the Notice specifying in writing the action, if any, to be
    taken by the Parties in order to ensure compliance with the OBU Commitments, and
    be prepared, if requested, to facilitate the settlement of the dispute.
    b.       FAST TRACK EXPERT DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
40. At the latest a month after the approval by the Commission of the Monitoring Trustee,
    Alstom shall propose a list of names for the Monitoring Trustee and the Commission
    to consider as potential experts to adjudicate in disputes (the “Experts”). The Experts
    shall be independent, suitably qualified, and shall have the necessary experience,
    competence, and qualifications in relation to Legacy OBU projects, ETCS OBU
    installation and retrofit projects and their pricing, ETCS OBU technology, and TCMS
    technology.
41. Where paragraph 38 applies, the Monitoring Trustee shall appoint one of the Experts
    to adjudicate on the dispute within 5 working days of expiry of the period set out in
    paragraph 39.
42. The process shall be conducted in private and shall be confidential. The language of
    the process shall be in English or French.
43. The Expert shall act on the following basis:
    (i) the Expert shall act fairly and impartially;
    (j) each party shall submit to the Expert its brief and its submission in relation to the
        matter in dispute within 10 working days of the Expert's appointment;
    (k) Each party shall assist and provide such documentation as the Expert reasonably
        requires to consider the matters referred to it;
    (l) the Expert’s determination shall be given within a maximum period of 20 working
        days of the Expert’s appointment;
    (m) the Expert's determination in relation to any matter pursuant to paragraph 38 shall
        (save for manifest error or fraud) be final and binding on Alstom and the
        Requesting Party;
    (n) any challenge to the Expert’s determination in accordance with the clause above
        shall be made according to Section G below;
                                                 69
 ---pagebreak---     (o) each party shall carry out the actions required to comply with the obligations set
        out in the Expert’s determination in relation to any matter pursuant to paragraph
        38 within any time-limits specified by the Expert; and
    (p) the Requesting Party shall pay the Expert’s costs if the Expert’s determination
        upholds Alstom’s claims. Alstom will pay the Expert’s costs if the Expert’s
        determination upholds the Requesting Party’s claims. The Expert shall otherwise
        determine how and by whom the costs of the determination are to be paid.
    c.       INVOLVEMENT OF THE COMMISSION
44. The Commission shall be allowed and enabled to participate in all stages of the
    procedure by:
    (e) receiving all written submissions (including documents and reports, etc.) made by
        each party to the procedure;
    (f) receiving all documents exchanged by the Expert with the parties to the procedure;
    (g) filing any written submissions; and
    (h) being present at the hearing(s) and being allowed to ask questions to the parties.
45. The Expert shall forward, or shall order the parties to forward, the documents
    mentioned in the previous paragraph to the Commission without delay.
46. The Monitoring Trustee shall receive copies of:
    (d) all submissions made by the parties to the procedure in relation to the matters they
        wish to have resolved by the Expert, on the day when these have been submitted
        to the Expert;
    (e) all other documentation provided by the parties, on the day when these have been
        submitted to the Expert; and
    (f) the determination made by the Expert, on the day when the determination has been
        provided to the parties.
    d.       REVIEW OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
47. At any moment for the entire duration of the Commitments, the terms and conditions
    of supply outlined in Annex A and Annex IV shall be subject to the review of the
    Monitoring Trustee who shall establish in particular whether (i) prices set for
    documentation are justified and in line with market practice in the industry, (ii) costs
    and fees used to determine pricing are justified based on the incurred costs for the
    provision of the requested services/products and (iii) net margins are calculated in line
    with market practice in the industry. Alstom commits to making all necessary
    accounts, financial indicators and other appropriate information available to the
    Monitoring Trustee for the purpose of the present review.
48. The Monitoring Trustee’s review does not preclude nor pre-empt dispute resolution
    procedures provided for under Sections E and F, and shall be conducted in due regard
    of these procedures if applicable.
                                               70
 ---pagebreak--- 49. In this respect, the Monitoring Trustee could act on its own initiative or following
    instructions by the Commission or on the basis of submissions received from
    Purchasers and may appoint Experts who would support the Monitoring Trustee in its
    review.
G.  FAST TRACK DISPUTE RESOLUTION: ARBITRATION
50. Any disputes arising out of or in connection with the Commitments which are not
    resolved pursuant to the previous Section E shall be finally settled in accordance with
    the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) by an
    arbitral tribunal consisting of three arbitrators (the Arbitral Tribunal).
51. Should the Companies fail to resolve their differences of opinion through cooperation
    and consultation as provided for in the Section E, the Requesting Company shall file
    arbitration proceedings with the ICC and nominate one arbitrator.
52. The other Company shall, within two (2) weeks of receiving notification in writing of
    the appointment of the Requesting Company’s arbitrator, nominate a second arbitrator
    and provide to the Requesting Company in writing detailed reasons for its challenged
    conduct.
53. The arbitrators nominated by the Companies shall, within one (1) week from both
    arbitrators having been nominated, agree to appoint a third arbitrator. If the
    arbitrators nominated by the Companies cannot agree on the nomination of a third
    arbitrator, they shall ask the President of the ICC to appoint the third arbitrator.
54. The arbitrators shall be instructed to make a preliminary ruling on the contested issues
    within one (1) month of the appointment of the third arbitrator, which may be
    extended, if necessary, by the unanimous agreement of all three arbitrators. The
    preliminary ruling shall be applicable immediately and until the final decision is
    issued. The final decision, which shall be ultimately binding on the Companies shall
    be taken by the arbitrators within six (6) months of the appointment of the third
    arbitrator, which may be extended, if necessary, by the unanimous agreement of all
    three arbitrators. Each Company waives any right which it may have to seek a
    preliminary ruling on any point of law from a court of law. An oral hearing shall, as a
    rule, be established within two (2) months of the confirmation of the Arbitral
    Tribunal.
55. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The arbitration shall be in English and
    conducted pursuant to the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC. Any order for the
    production or disclosure of documents shall be limited to the documents on which
    each party of the arbitration specifically relies in its submission(s).
56. The arbitrators shall agree in writing to keep any confidential information and
    business secrets disclosed to them in confidence. The Arbitral Tribunal may take the
    measures necessary for protecting confidential information in particular by restricting
    access to confidential information to the Arbitral Tribunal, and outside counsel and
    experts of the opposing party. The arbitrators shall be instructed not to disclose
    confidential information and to apply the standards attributable to confidential
    information and business secrets by European Union competition law.
57. The Commission shall be allowed and enabled to participate in all stages of the
    procedure by:
                                                 71
 ---pagebreak---     (a)       Receiving all written submissions (including documents and reports, etc.)
              made by the Companies;
    (b)       Receiving all orders, interim and final awards and other documents
              exchanged by the Arbitral Tribunal with the Companies (including Terms of
              Reference and procedural time-table);
    (c)       Being given the opportunity to file amicus curiae briefs; and
    (d)       Being present at the hearing(s) and being allowed to ask questions to
              parties, witnesses and experts.
58. The Arbitral Tribunal shall forward, or shall order the Companies to forward, the
    documents mentioned to the Commission without delay.
59. In the event of disagreement between the Companies regarding the interpretation of
    the Commitment, the Arbitral Tribunal may seek the Commission’s interpretation of
    the Commitment before finding in favour of any Company and shall be bound by the
    interpretation.
60. In the event of disagreement between the Companies regarding the interpretation of a
    Commitment, the Arbitral Tribunal shall inform the Monitoring Trustee and may seek
    the Monitoring Trustee’s interpretation of the Commitment before finding in favour of
    any Company.
61. The Arbitral Tribunal shall decide the dispute on the basis of the Commitment and the
    Decision. The Commitment shall be construed in accordance with the Merger
    Regulation, EU law, and general principles of law common to the legal orders of the
    Member States without a requirement to apply a particular national system.
62. Nothing in the above-described arbitration procedure shall affect the powers of the
    Commission to take decisions in relation to the Commitment in accordance with its
    powers under the Merger Regulation and the Treaty on the Functioning of the
    European Union.
H.  GENERAL PROVISIONS
63. The STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments are limited to the EEA, Switzerland, and
    in the UK and shall remain in effect for twenty (20) years as from the Closing Date or
    until the ERTMS roll-out is complete in the EEA (whichever is shorter).
64. The TCMS Commitments are limited to the EEA, Switzerland, and in the UK and
    shall remain in effect for twelve (12) years as from the Closing Date or until the
    ERTMS roll-out is complete in the EEA (whichever is shorter).
65. The Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments will apply for a period of twenty (20)
    years from the Closing Date.
66. Subject to Sections E and F, any dispute arising out of or in connection with the STMs
    and Class B OBUs Commitments will be governed by and construed in accordance
    with French Law, while any dispute arising out of or in connection with the he
    Netherlands Legacy OBU Commitments will be governed by Dutch Law.
                                               72
 ---pagebreak--- I.  THE REVIEW CLAUSE
67. The Commission may extend the time periods foreseen in the Commitments in
    response to a request from Alstom or, in appropriate cases, on its own initiative.
    Where Alstom requests an extension of a time period, they shall submit a request to
    the Commission no later than one month before the expiry of that period, showing
    good cause. This request shall be accompanied by a report from the Monitoring
    Trustee(s), who shall, at the same time send a non-confidential copy of the report to
    the Parties. Only in exceptional circumstances shall Alstom be entitled to request an
    extension within the last month of any period.
68. The Commission may further, in response to a request from Alstom showing good
    cause waive, modify or substitute, in exceptional circumstances, one or more of the
    undertakings in these Commitments. This request shall be accompanied by a report
    from the Monitoring Trustee(s), who shall, at the same time send a non-confidential
    copy of the report to Alstom. The request shall not have the effect of suspending the
    application of the undertaking and, in particular, of suspending the expiry of any time
    period in which the undertaking has to be complied with.
                                              73
 ---pagebreak--- J.     ENTRY INTO FORCE
69.    The provisions in the Commitments as to the appointment of the Monitoring Trustee
       shall take effect upon the Effective Date, although the obligations to supply
       Purchasers (as explained above) will only take effect as of completion of the Proposed
       Transaction (the “Closing Date”) provided that if the completion of the Concentration
       does not take place for whatever reason and is thereby abandoned, the Notifying Party
       shall not be bound by these Commitments.
   Signature pages follow.
   __________________________
       [Signed by]
       duly authorised for and on behalf of Alstom S.A.
   __________________________
       [Signed by]
       duly authorised for and on behalf of Bombardier Transportation (Investment) UK
       Ltd and Bombardier Inc.
                                                 74
 ---pagebreak--- Annexes I.1 to I.7
 [Confidential]
          75
 ---pagebreak---             Annex II — Non-Disclosure Agreement — Principal Clauses
1.  Definitions
1.1 “Affiliate” means any entity with respect to which either party owns or controls,
    directly or indirectly, greater than fifty percent (>50%) of the outstanding voting
    securities (but an entity shall remain an Affiliate only so long as it meets such
    ownership requirements).
1.2 “Confidential Information” means all information of any nature relating directly or
    indirectly to the Disclosing Party, including its Affiliates, shareholders, products, and
    activities, which may be supplied, whether oral or written, and regardless of the
    manner or form of the disclosure, to the Receiving Party, by or on behalf of the
    Disclosing Party, as the case may be.
1.3 Confidential information includes all notes, reports, memoranda, analyses,
    compilations, studies, forecasts, interpretations, or other documents or materials in
    whatever medium prepared by the Disclosing Party or on its behalf which contain,
    reflect or are based upon, in whole or in part, the information described in paragraph
    1.2 above or referring to or derived from such information.
1.4 Notwithstanding the above, the following information shall not be considered as
    Confidential Information:
    a) information that is, was or has become generally available to the public other than
        as a result of a disclosure by any of the Parties or their Representatives in breach
        of this Agreement or any other confidentiality obligations; or
    b) information that the Receiving Party can establish was known at the time of
        disclosure to such Receiving Party or its Representatives, free of restriction and
        evidenced by documentation in the Receiving Party’s possession from a source
        other than the Disclosing Party or its Representatives, provided that such source
        was not bound at the time of the disclosure by any obligation to keep such
        information confidential and did not obtain such information unlawfully or
        pursuant to a breach of a confidentiality obligation; or
    c) information that the Receiving Party can establish was lawfully obtained after the
        date hereof by the Receiving Party or its Representatives, free of restriction and
        evidenced by documentation in the Receiving Party’s possession from a source
        other than the Disclosing Party or its Representatives, provided that such source
        was not bound at the time of the disclosure by any obligation to keep such
        information confidential and did not obtain such information unlawfully or
        pursuant to a breach of a confidentiality obligation.
1.5 “Disclosing Party” means the owner of the Confidential Information, the Party
    disclosing Confidential Information to the Receiving Party.
                                               76
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6  “Governmental Authority” means any international, foreign, domestic, federal,
     territorial, state, or local body with executive, legislative, judicial, regulatory or
     administrative authority, including any supra-national Governmental Authority, as
     well as any individual or entity having received delegated authority from any of the
     foregoing.
1.7  “OBU Commitments” has the meaning set out in the commitments attached to the
     European Commission’s decision in Case M.9779 – Alstom/Bombardier.
1.8  “Receiving Party” means the Party receiving the Confidential Information owned
     and disclosed by the Disclosing Party.
1.9  “Representatives” means, in respect of a Party to this Agreement, the Affiliates of
     that Party and the directors, officers, partners, managers, and employees of that Party
     and its Affiliates.
1.10 “Parties” means the Parties to this Agreement, the Receiving and the Disclosing
     Party, and Party shall mean either of them (as the context requires).
2.   Use of Confidential Information
2.1  The Receiving Party shall handle, use, treat, and utilize such Confidential Information
     as follows:
     a) hold all Confidential Information received from the Disclosing Party in strict
         confidence;
     b) use such Confidential Information only for the purposes identified in the Master
         Agreement;
     c) reproduce such Confidential Information only to the extent necessary for such
         purpose;
     d) restrict disclosure of such Confidential Information to its employees with a need
         to know (and advise such employees of the obligations assumed herein); and
     e) except as set forth in paragraph Error! Reference source not found. herein, do
         not disclose such Confidential Information to any third party, including (but not
         limited to) any vendor, customer, manufacturer, or independent contractor,
         without prior written approval of such Disclosing Party. In addition, with respect
         to any equipment, component, software, or other item delivered to the Receiving
         Party by the Disclosing Party, the Receiving Party shall not reverse engineer,
         disassemble, decompile, or otherwise analyse the physical construction of any
         such items; and
                                                 77
 ---pagebreak---     f) undertake to take all necessary and appropriate measures in order to ensure the
        protection of the confidentiality of the Confidential Information and any copies of
        it and to prevent theft, hacking (of electronic data), misappropriation, or
        unauthorized access or use of such Confidential Information and copies.
2.2 The restrictions on the Receiving Party’s use and disclosure of Confidential
    Information as set forth above shall not apply to any Confidential Information which
    the Receiving Party can demonstrate:
    a) is wholly and independently developed by the Receiving Party without the use of
        Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party; or
     b) is approved for release by written authorization of the Disclosing Party, but only
          to the extent of, and subject to, such conditions as may be imposed in such
          written authorization; or
     c) is disclosed in response to a valid order of a Governmental Authority, but only to
          the extent of, and for the purposes of, such order; provided, however, that if the
          Receiving Party receives an order or request to disclose any Confidential
          Information by a court of competent jurisdiction or a governmental body, then
          the Receiving Party agrees:
         i.    if not prohibited by the request or order, to inform the Disclosing Party, prior
               to disclosing any Confidential Information in writing of the existence, terms,
               and circumstances surrounding the request or order;
        ii.    to consult with the Disclosing Party on what steps should be taken to avoid
               or restrict the disclosure of Confidential Information;
       iii.    to give the Disclosing Party the chance to defend, limit, or protect against
               the disclosure and not to oppose any such action; and if disclosure of
               Confidential Information is lawfully required, to supply only that portion of
               the Confidential Information which is legally necessary and undertake to
               take all necessary and appropriate measures in order to obtain confidential
               treatment for any Confidential Information required to be disclosed; and
       iv.     if disclosure of Confidential Information is lawfully required, to supply only
               that portion of the Confidential Information which is legally necessary and
               undertake to take all necessary and appropriate measures in order to obtain
               confidential treatment for any Confidential Information required to be
               disclosed.
2.3 For the avoidance of doubt, this clause 2.2 above shall not prevent either Party
    disclosing information to the European Commission or the Monitoring Trustee
    appointed under the OBU Commitments.
                                                 78
 ---pagebreak--- 3.  Designation of Confidential Information
3.1 Confidential Information shall be subject to the restrictions of paragraph 2 if it is in
    writing, or another tangible form, and clearly marked as proprietary or confidential
    when disclosed to the Receiving Party or, if not disclosed in tangible form, clearly
    identified as confidential or proprietary at the time of disclosure. The Parties agree to
    use reasonable efforts to summarize the content of oral disclosures which are
    proprietary or confidential, but failure to provide such a summary shall not affect the
    nature of the Confidential Information disclosed or detract from the protection
    afforded under this Agreement if such Confidential Information was identified as
    confidential or proprietary when orally disclosed.
4.  Disclosure of Confidential Information to Affiliates and other third parties with
    a Need to Know
4.1 This Agreement does not permit either Party to disclose Confidential Information to
    any third party (including, without limitation, that Party’s Affiliates).
    Notwithstanding the foregoing, either Party may re-disclose Confidential Information
    to its Affiliates or any third party identified in the written request, and solely to the
    extent stated in this written request, who have a need to know and shall treat such
    Confidential Information in a manner that is consistent with the confidentiality
    obligations of the Receiving Party in this Agreement, and such Affiliates may re-
    disclose Confidential Information to other such Affiliates and to a Party hereto.
    Either Party’s Affiliates may also disclose Confidential Information to the other Party
    hereto and to such other Party’s Affiliates. In such event, the other Party hereto, and
    such other Party’s Affiliates, shall treat such Confidential Information in accordance
    with the provisions of this Agreement as if such Confidential Information was
    disclosed directly by the Disclosing Party, and the Disclosing Party and/or its
    Affiliates shall have the right to enforce the provisions of this Agreement against the
    other Party hereto and against such other Party’s Affiliates in connection with any and
    all breaches or violations of this Agreement with respect to such Confidential
    Information by the other Party hereto and by such other Party’s Affiliates. Either
    Party’s Affiliates may also receive Confidential Information from the other Party
    hereto and from such other party’s Affiliates. In such event, the Affiliate receiving
    such Confidential Information shall be responsible to treat such Confidential
    Information in accordance with the confidentiality obligations set forth in this
    Agreement. The Parties hereto shall be responsible for any improper disclosure or use
    by its Affiliates or by any third party identified in the written request of such
    Confidential Information to the same extent as if that party had received such
    Confidential Information directly and made the same disclosure or use of such
    Confidential Information as did its Affiliates.
5.  No License or Representations
5.1 All Confidential Information shall remain the property of the Disclosing Party. No
    license to a Party of any trademark, patent, copyright, mask work protection right, or
    any other intellectual property right is either granted or implied by this Agreement or
    any disclosure hereunder, including, but not limited to, any license to make, use,
    import, or sell any product embodying any Confidential Information. In this regard,
                                                79
 ---pagebreak---     the Receiving Party undertakes not to claim any intellectual and/or industrial property
    rights regarding the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information and not to request,
    directly or indirectly, any patents, trademarks, models, or any other intellectual and/or
    industrial property rights regarding the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information.
    No representation, warranty, or assurance is made by either Party with respect to the
    non-infringement of trademarks, patents, copyrights, mask protection rights, or any
    other intellectual property rights or other rights of third persons.
6.  No Obligation
6.1 Neither this Agreement nor the disclosure or receipt of Confidential Information shall
    be construed as creating any obligation for a Party to provide Confidential
    Information to the other Party other than Alstom’s obligations contained in the OBU
    Commitments or to enter into any agreement or relationship with the other Party with
    respect to mutual business.
7.  Return / destruction of Confidential Information
7.1 All Confidential Information shall remain the sole property of the Disclosing Party.
    Except as may be otherwise required by applicable law, regulation, legal, or judicial
    process, the Receiving Party shall make all reasonable efforts to promptly return or
    destroy (which shall include all reasonable steps to erase from any computer or other
    digital device on which it is held) all materials containing any such Confidential
    Information (including all copies made by the Receiving Party), upon request
    following termination or expiration of this Agreement or the Receiving Party’s
    determination that it no longer has a need for such Confidential Information. Upon
    request of the Disclosing Party, the Receiving Party shall deliver to the Disclosing
    Party a letter signed by a duly authorized officer confirming that all such materials
    have been returned to the Disclosing Party or destroyed. Notwithstanding the above,
    the Receiving Party may retain copies of Confidential Information stored on backup
    disks or in backup storage facilities automatically produced in the ordinary course of
    business. Any Confidential Information so retained will be held subject to the
    confidentiality and use limitations of this Agreement, which shall continue to apply
    for so long as the Confidential Information is so retained, and access thereto shall be
    limited to individuals or entities required to have access for purposes of such
    compliance.
7.2 Notwithstanding the return or destruction of the Confidential Information, the
    Receiving Party will continue to be bound by its obligations hereunder for the
    duration of this Agreement.
8.  Notification of breach
8.1 The Receiving Party will inform the Disclosing Party promptly of any breach by such
    Receiving Party and/or its Representatives or Affiliates of the terms of this Agreement
    of which such Party may become aware and undertake to provide, at its expense, all
    reasonable assistance to minimize the effects of such breach.
                                                80
 ---pagebreak--- 9.   Remedy for breach
9.1  The Receiving Party acknowledges that any breach of the provisions of this
     Agreement may result in serious prejudice being sustained by the Disclosing Party
     and its Affiliates, its business, and/or its shareholders and that damages alone may not
     be adequate remedy for such breach and, accordingly, without prejudice to any other
     rights or remedies that the Disclosing Party and/or their Affiliates might have, the
     Disclosing Party may be entitled to seek the remedies of injunction, specific
     performance and other enforcement measures for any threatened or actual breach of
     the provisions of this Agreement.
9.2  The Receiving Party will be liable to pay on demand to the Disclosing Party an
     amount equal to any damage, loss or costs resulting from any failure to comply with
     any of the obligations for which the Receiving Party or its Affiliates are liable under
     this Agreement.
10.  Notices
10.1 All notices, requests, demands, and other communications which are required to be or
     may be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have
     been received if delivered by (i) hand delivery against receipt signed and dated by the
     addressee, (ii) registered mail return receipt requested or if sent by email (provided
     automatic confirmation of receipt of email is issued to the sender of the notice or
     receipt of the notice is acknowledged by the recipient including by email) provided
     that a hard copy of such notice is also delivered by international courier service one
     Business Day after transmission, to the Parties at the following addresses: [To be
     provided in agreements when signed]
10.2 Any notice given by mail, international courier service or email shall be effective
     when delivered. Any notice given by email after 5:00pm (in the place of receipt) on a
     Business Day or on a day that is not a Business Day shall be deemed received on the
     following Business Day.
10.3 For purposes of this Section, a “Business Day” shall mean a day on which banking
     institutions are open for regular business in France, which shall not be a Saturday, a
     Sunday, a legal holiday, or other day on which banking institutions are authorized or
     obligated by law to close in France.
11.  No hardship
11.1 Pursuant to article 1195 of the French Code civil, each Party accepts to bear all future
     liabilities and risks (including unforeseeable as of the date hereof) resulting from the
     terms and conditions of this Agreement and accordingly irrevocably waives any right
     it may have under said article.
                                                   81
 ---pagebreak--- 12.  Term and Termination
12.1 This Agreement shall become effective on the date first set forth above and shall
     terminate upon the [12th anniversary]/[20th anniversary] [As appropriate depending on
     Commitment to which confidentiality agreement relates] of closing of the
     contemplated acquisition by Alstom S.A. of sole control over Bombardier
     Transportation [(Investment) UK Ltd]. Each Party irrevocably waives any right to
     terminate unilaterally this Agreement under article 1226 of the French Code civil.
13.  Survivability
13.1 Each Party agrees that all of its obligations undertaken herein as a Receiving Party
     shall survive and continue after any termination or expiration of this Agreement.
14.  Governing Law and Arbitration
14.1 This Agreement shall be governed in all respects solely and exclusively by French
     Law. All disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection
     with this Agreement shall be resolved by the Fast Track Dispute Resolution Procedure
     contained in the Commitments.
14.2 Each Party shall be entitled to seek preliminary injunctive relief or other temporary
     measures from the courts of competent jurisdiction, provided that any proceedings
     and decisions as to the merits of the dispute are exclusively governed and resolved by
     arbitration in accordance with the Fast Track Dispute Resolution Procedure.
15.  Independent Development
15.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a representation or agreement that the
     Receiving Party is not currently developing, shall not develop, or have developed for
     it, products, concepts, systems, technologies, or techniques that are similar to or
     compete with the products, concepts, systems, technologies, or techniques
     contemplated by the purpose or embodied in the Confidential Information, or explore
     such similar opportunities with other parties, provided that the Receiving Party does
     not violate any of its obligations under this Agreement in connection therewith.
16.  Miscellaneous
16.1 This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding among the Parties hereto as to
     the Confidential Information and supersedes all prior discussions between them
                                                 82
 ---pagebreak--- relating thereto. No amendment nor modification of this Agreement shall be valid or
binding on the Parties unless made in writing and signed on behalf of each of the
Parties by its authorized officer or representative. No Party may assign or transfer, in
whole or in part, any of its rights, obligations, or duties under this Agreement. The
failure or delay of any party to enforce at any time any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right thereafter to enforce each and every
provision of this Agreement. In the event that any of the terms, conditions, or
provisions of this Agreement are held to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid by any
court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms, conditions, or provisions hereof
shall remain in full force and effect.
                                           83
 ---pagebreak---                                        Annex III: Monitoring Trustee
1.      The Monitoring Trustee shall, at the time of appointment, be independent of Alstom
        and Bombardier and their Affiliated Undertakings1, possess the necessary experience,
        competence, and qualifications to carry out its mandate and shall neither have nor
        become exposed to a conflict of interest.
2.      The Monitoring Trustee shall be remunerated by Alstom in a way that does not
        impede the independent and effective fulfilment of the Monitoring Trustee’s mandate.
        Proposal by Alstom
3.      No later than two weeks after the Effective Date, Alstom shall submit the name or
        names of one or more natural or legal persons whom Alstom proposes to appoint as
        the Monitoring Trustee to the European Commission (the “Commission”) for
        approval. The proposal shall contain sufficient information for the Commission to
        verify that the person or persons proposed as Monitoring Trustee fulfil the
        requirements set out in paragraph Error! Reference source not found. and shall
        include:
         a) the full terms of the proposed mandate, which shall include all provisions
              necessary to enable the Monitoring Trustee to fulfil its duties under the
              Commitments; and
         b) the outline of a work plan which describes how the Monitoring Trustee intends to
              carry out its assigned tasks.
        Approval or rejection by the Commission
4.      The Commission shall have the discretion to approve or reject the proposed Trustee(s)
        and to approve the proposed mandate subject to any modifications it deems necessary
        for the Trustee to fulfil its obligations. If only one name is approved, Alstom shall
        appoint, or cause to be appointed, the person or persons concerned as Trustee, in
        accordance with the mandate approved by the Commission. If more than one name is
        approved, Alstom shall be free to choose the Trustee to be appointed from among the
        names approved. The Trustee shall be appointed within one week of the
        Commission’s approval, in accordance with the mandate approved by the
        Commission.
        New proposal by Alstom
5.      If all the proposed Trustees are rejected, Alstom shall submit the names of at least two
        more natural or legal persons within one week of being informed of the rejection, in
        accordance with paragraphs 35 and 3.
1  Affiliated Undertakings: undertakings controlled by the Parties and/or by the ultimate parents of the Parties,
   whereby the notion of control shall be interpreted pursuant to Article 3 of the Merger Regulation and in
   light of the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on
   the control of concentrations between undertakings (the “Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice”).
                                                         84
 ---pagebreak---    Trustee nominated by the Commission
6. If all further proposed Trustees are rejected by the Commission, the Commission shall
   nominate a Trustee, whom Alstom shall appoint, or cause to be appointed, in
   accordance with a trustee mandate approved by the Commission.
   Functions of the Monitoring Trustee
7. The Trustee shall assume its specified duties and obligations in order to ensure
   compliance with the Commitments. The Commission may, on its own initiative or at
   the request of the Trustee or Alstom, give any orders or instructions to the Trustee in
   order to ensure compliance with the conditions and obligations attached to the
   Decision.
8. The Monitoring Trustee shall:
    a) propose in its first report to the Commission a detailed work plan describing how
        it intends to monitor compliance with the obligations and conditions attached to
        the Decision;
    b) monitor compliance by Alstom with the conditions and obligations attached to the
        Decision;
    c) propose to Alstom such measures as the Monitoring Trustee considers necessary
        to ensure Alstom’s compliance with the conditions and obligations attached to the
        Decision;
    d) act as a contact point for any request by third parties, in relation to the
        Commitments;
    e) provide to the Commission, sending to Alstom a non-confidential copy at the
        same time, a written report within fifteen (15) working days after the end of every
        quarter of the Effective Date for the first five (5) years and every six (6) months
        thereafter, so that the Commission can assess whether the commitments are being
        correctly implemented;
    f) promptly report in writing to the Commission, sending to Alstom a non-
        confidential copy at the same time, if it concludes on reasonable grounds that the
        Alstom is failing to comply with the Commitments; and
    g) assume the other functions assigned to the Monitoring Trustee under the
        conditions and obligations attached to the Decision.
   Duties and Obligations of Alstom
9. Alstom shall provide and shall cause its advisors to provide the Monitoring Trustee
   with all such cooperation, assistance, and information as the Monitoring Trustee may
   reasonably require to perform its tasks. The Monitoring Trustee shall have full and
   complete access to Alstom’s books, records, documents, management, or other
   personnel, facilities, sites, and technical information necessary for fulfilling its duties
   under the Commitments and Alstom shall provide the Trustee upon request with
   copies of any relevant document. Alstom shall make available to the Monitoring
   Trustee one or more offices on their premises and shall be available for meetings in
   order to provide the Monitoring Trustee with all information necessary for the
   performance of its tasks.
                                                85
 ---pagebreak--- 10. Alstom shall provide the Monitoring Trustee with all managerial and administrative
    support that it may reasonably request to monitor the Commitments.
11. Alstom shall provide the Monitoring Trustee with copies of all agreements entered
    into under these Commitments promptly following the execution thereof, in each case
    subject to the Monitoring Trustee’s obligations of professional secrecy.
12. Alstom shall indemnify the Monitoring Trustee and its employees and agents (each an
    “Indemnified Party”) and hold each Indemnified Party harmless against, and hereby
    agrees that an Indemnified Party shall have no liability to, Alstom for any liabilities
    arising out of the performance of the Monitoring Trustee’s duties under the
    Commitments, except to the extent that such liabilities result from the wilful default,
    recklessness, gross negligence, or bad faith of the Monitoring Trustee, its employees,
    agents, or advisors.
13. At the expense of Alstom, the Monitoring Trustee may appoint advisors (in particular
    for legal advice), subject to Alstom’s approval (this approval not to be unreasonably
    withheld or delayed) if the Monitoring Trustee considers the appointment of such
    advisors necessary or appropriate for the performance of its duties and obligations
    under the mandate, provided that any fees and other expenses incurred by the
    Monitoring Trustee are reasonable. Should Alstom refuse to approve the advisors
    proposed by the Monitoring Trustee, the Commission may approve the appointment
    of such advisors instead, after having heard Alstom. Only the Monitoring Trustee
    shall be entitled to issue instructions to the advisors. Paragraph 12 shall apply mutatis
    mutandis.
14. Alstom agrees that the Commission may share confidential information proprietary to
    Alstom with the Monitoring Trustee. The Monitoring Trustee shall not disclose such
    information. The principles contained in Articles 17(1) and (2) of the Merger
    Regulation apply mutatis mutandis.
15. Alstom agrees that the contact details of the Monitoring Trustee are published on the
    website of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition, and shall inform
    interested third parties, in particular any potential purchasers, of the identity and the
    tasks of the Monitoring Trustee.
16. For a period of twenty (20) years from the Effective Date, the Commission may
    request all information from the Parties that is reasonably necessary to monitor the
    effective implementation of these Commitments.
    Replacement, discharge, and reappointment of the Monitoring Trustee
17. If the Monitoring Trustee ceases to perform its functions under the Commitment or
    for any other good cause, including the exposure of the Trustee to a Conflict of
    Interest:
     a) the Commission may, after hearing the Trustee and Alstom, require the Alstom to
         replace the Trustee; or
     b) Alstom may, with the prior approval of the Commission, replace the Trustee.
18. If the Trustee is removed according to paragraph Error! Reference source not
    found., the Trustee may be required to continue in its function until a new Trustee is
    in place to whom the Trustee has effected a full hand over all relevant information.
                                                 86
 ---pagebreak---     The new Trustee shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure referred to in
    paragraphs 35–6.
19. Unless removed according to paragraph 17, the Trustee shall cease to act as Trustee
    only after the Commission has discharged it from its duties after all the Commitments
    with which the Trustee has been entrusted have been implemented. However, the
    Commission may at any time require the reappointment of the Monitoring Trustee if it
    subsequently appears that the relevant remedies might not have been fully and
    properly implemented.
                                            87
 ---pagebreak---                                           Annex A: Pricing Formula
1.    All services and products offered within the Commitments (other than the provision
      of documentation for which fixed fees are provided) will be priced on a cost-plus
      basis. This applies to:
               STM/Class B manufacturing
               Technical support relating to STM/Class Bs
               Redesign/design renewal of STMs
               TCMS modifications
A.    STM AND CLASS B
      1.        COST-PLUS PRICING FOR CLASS BS AND STM MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY
2.    Available Class Bs and STMs, assuming no obsolescence applies, will be priced on a
      cost-plus basis per unit. At the time each order is placed, the price will be calculated
      based on the following methodology (all costs as estimated at the time of ordering):
           Direct equipment costs in EUR, including but not limited to those related to:
                     o Manufacturing
                     o Costs of components including supply chain costs
                     o Testing
                     o Project management
                     o Packing and delivery per defined Incoterms
           Plus: Fee to cover:
                     o Warranty
                     o Product sustaining (including addressing Minor Obsolescence)
                     o    [Confidential details on Alstom’s business cost structure]1
                     o Net margin.
1.    Discounts will be offered for high quantities (above […]) based on the following
      methodology.
                [Confidential details on discounts’ structure].
1  [Confidential details on Alstom’s business cost structure].
                                                          88
 ---pagebreak---    2.      PRICING FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT, TCMS MODIFICATIONS, REDESIGN
2. Technical support, support for TCMS modifications, and redesign of STMs will be
   priced also on a cost plus basis taking into account the following elements
       Direct design and industrialization costs in EUR, including but not limited to
        those related to:
               o Engineering (design and modification)
               o Industrialization and manufacturing files
               o Purchase or subcontracting costs
               o Testing
               o Project management
               o Travel costs
       Plus: Fee to cover:
               o    [Confidential details on Alstom’s business cost structure]
               o Net margin
   3.      PAYMENT TERMS FOR REDESIGN
3. Where, redesign of an STM is required due to major obsolescence Alstom will offer
   two alternatives, either:
          An infrastructure manager can commission the redesign work for a one-off
           fee, or
          The design refresh will be charged as an increase to the unit price calculated
           under the formula outlined above in paragraph 2 amortized over three years.
   4.      WARRANTY FOR STMS / CLASS BS
4. The standard warranty period is twenty-four (24) months after commissioning of the
   contractual products, but shall not, however, exceed thirty (30) months after delivery
   of the contractual products.
5. Return cost is included. The final user shall be responsible for the diagnostic,
   dismounting, and freight for failed components from the Customer’s site to Alstom’s
   manufacturing site.
                                               89
 ---pagebreak---         5.       INTERFACE DOCUMENTATION
6.      Subject to the special provisions on Finland and Portugal, Interface Documentation
        will be provided at a fixed price of EUR […] per Class B / STM.
        6.       INTEROPERABILITY DOCUMENTATION
7.      Available Interoperability Documentation will be provided at a fixed price of EUR
        […] per TCMS type. 2
B.      GENERAL CONDITIONS
8.      All prices are excluding VAT.
9.      Delivery will be made in accordance with DPA Purchaser Site within the EEA,
        Incoterms ICC 2020.
10.     All services are invoiced in EUR (Euro) regardless of the location of the client subject
        to applicable taxation laws.
2   As provided in Annex I.1 to Annex I.7.
                                                  90
 ---pagebreak---           Annex B – Framework Agreement for Supply of Alstom ATB-EG Class B –
                                              Principal Terms
1.     Alstom will agree upon a Framework Agreement (the “Dutch Framework
       Agreement”) with the Dutch infrastructure manager (ProRail, hereafter referred to as
       the “Customer”, together with Alstom the “Contracting Parties”), at ProRail’s
       option, for the supply of Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B for a period of twenty (20) years
       from the Closing Date. The Dutch Framework Agreement will allow for rolling
       stock suppliers and/or ETCS OBU suppliers authorized by the Customer
       (“Authorized Third Parties”) to place orders for Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B at the
       same pricing and on the same terms as agreed with ProRail.1
2.     Under this Dutch Framework Agreement, the Customer will be able to order or will
       be able to authorize rolling stock suppliers and/or ETCS OBU suppliers to order
       ATB-EG Class B.
3.     The Dutch Framework Agreement will contain the following principal terms:
4.     No restriction on end-user to whom ATB-EG Class B can be supplied. The
       Customer will be free to pass on quantities purchased of Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B
       to any third party for installation in rolling stock in the EEA or to authorize a third
       party to order Alstom’s ATB-EG Class for installation in rolling stock in the EEA.
5.     Interface information. Under the Dutch Framework Agreement, Alstom will
       provide Authorized Third Parties with Interface Documentation for Alstom’s ATB-
       EG Class B for a fixed fee of EUR […] per cab, adjusted on a yearly basis as
       approved by the Monitoring Trustee.
6.     Pricing. Pricing will be agreed between Alstom and the Customer, taking as a
       starting point current existing benchmark pricing for Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B
       sales on a product basis and open book principles and will be adjusted on a yearly
       basis following the revision formula based on applicable to the supply of STMs and
       Class B OBUs set out in Annex A of the OBU Commitments. Authorized Third
       Parties will be entitled to order Alstom’s ATB-EG Class B on the basis of the
       pricing agreed with the Customer and otherwise subject to the principal terms of the
       Dutch Framework Agreement. The same terms as set out in Annex A regarding
       redesign shall also apply to the Dutch Framework Agreement.
7.     Term and termination. The Dutch Framework Agreement will be concluded for an
       initial period of twenty (20) years from the Closing Date. The Dutch Framework
       Agreement will be terminable for material breach by either Contracting Party, and in
       any event by the Customer at any time subject to six (6) months’ notice of
       termination. For the purposes of this Dutch Framework Agreement, a material
       breach shall be deemed to have arisen when:
           a) the Customer’s payments for 2 consecutive orders of any duly delivered
               ATB-EG Class Bs are overdue for more than 90 days.
           b) Failure by Alstom to comply in substantial part with substantial provisions of
               this Dutch Framework Agreement, and in particular with clauses 5, Error!
               Reference source not found. 13 and 20 of this Dutch Framework
               Agreement.
1  Authorized Third Parties to enter contracts with Alstom substantially on the same terms as the Dutch
   Framework Agreement.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.  If an Authorized Third Party’s payments to Alstom are overdue for more than 90
    days for any 2 consecutive orders, Alstom will be entitled to terminate supply to that
    Authorized Third Party. The Customer’s Dutch Framework Agreement would not
    be terminated in that situation, unless the Customer itself were in breach under 7a) or
    7b) above.
9.  Option for renewal. After expiration of the Commitments and the twenty (20) years
    term of the Dutch Framework Agreement, ProRail will have the option to extend the
    Dutch Framework agreement on the same terms for a further period of […] years
10. Call-off procedure. Whenever the Customer wishes Alstom to provide any units of
    the ATB-EG Class B it shall issue a Call-off for such units via email to an address to
    be agreed in the Dutch Framework Agreement specifying the date for delivery, the
    price to be paid, and the location of delivery (which shall be a location within the
    Netherlands). The date for delivery may be no sooner than […] months and no later
    than […] months after issuance of the Call-off, depending on the quantity of ATB-
    EG Class Bs ordered by the Customer. Alstom shall acknowledge receipt of such
    Call-off via email no later than the fifth working day following receipt, confirming
    availability of the units by the requested date or advising of any supply issues.
11. The Customer may delegate its responsibilities under this Call-off Procedure, as well
    as liability for payment of such units to an Authorized Third Party, provided that
    such Authorized Third Party agrees to the same payment terms and other provisions
    including as to liability as are outlined in the Dutch Framework Agreement.
12. Maximum quantities. The Dutch Framework Agreement will include no minimum
    order requirements and will be subject to a maximum yearly order of […] ATB-EG
    Class B units (regardless of whether orders are placed by the Customer or an
    Authorized Third Party).
13. Quality and Rejection. Alstom commits to deliver units of the ATB-EG Class B
    that meet the quality standards in the technical specification that will be included in
    the Dutch Framework Agreement and/or attached to each individual order (the
    “Technical Specification”). Prior to the delivery of any ATB-EG Class B units
    ordered by the Customer or any Authorized Third Party, Alstom will conduct factory
    testing of any such ATB-EG Class Bs in accordance with the last validated factory
    testing process set out in the Technical Specification. Delivered units of ATB-EG
    Class B will be accompanied by their certificate of conformity.
14. The Customer or an Authorized Third Party may, not later than one (1) month after
    the delivery of the relevant ATB-EG Class Bs, reject by notice in writing, any ATB-
    EG Class Bs which, in its reasonable opinion, are not in accordance with the relevant
    Technical Specification. Any such rejection notice shall include the Customer and
    Authorized Third Party ’s explanation of the basis and reasons for the relevant ATB-
    EG Class B’s non-compliance with the agreed Technical Specification. Any ATB-
    EG Class Bs not so rejected shall be deemed to have been accepted by the Customer
    or the Authorized Third Party.
15. Payments. The Dutch Framework Agreement will require advance payment of
    […]% of the price of a particular order, with the balance payable within […] days of
    shipment or against warehouse receipt, within the Netherlands. All payments are to
    be made in EUR (Euros) subject to applicable taxation legislation.
                                                92
 ---pagebreak--- 16. Title and Risk. Passage of title and risk will be agreed between Alstom and ProRail
    based on Incoterms ICC 2020.
17. Liability. In no event shall Alstom be liable to the Customer or any Authorized
    Third Party, including by way of indemnity, for any loss of profits, loss of business
    or production, loss of revenue, loss of or damage to goodwill, loss of savings
    (whether anticipated or otherwise) and/or any indirect, special or consequential loss
    or damage.
18. Warranty. Alstom shall repair any defective ATB-EG Class B at its own expense 24
    months after commissioning or 30 months after handover to the Customer or the
    relevant Authorized Third Party.
19. Rights of third parties. Nothing herein expressed or implied is intended or shall be
    construed to confer upon or give to any person or corporation, other than the
    Contracting Parties hereto and their permitted successors or assignees, any rights or
    remedies under or by reason of this Framework Agreement.
20. Major Obsolescence. If Alstom anticipates Major Obsolescence of ATB-EG Class
    Bs as delivered, a last buy order notice will be sent to the Customer or the relevant
    Authorized Third Party with a minimum period of six (6) months to allow for
    additional orders.
21. Redesign at Customer’s request. Where redesign of the ATB-EG would be required
    due to Major Obsolescence or need to renew the industrial file due to absence of
    regular purchase orders leading to no manufacturing having taken place for […]),
    Alstom will offer the Customer, on substantially the same terms as those set out in
    Annex A to the STMs and Class B OBUs Commitments, at Alstom’s sole discretion,
    either:
            To develop a standalone ATB-EG STM; or
            To redesign Bombardier’s ATB-EG STM.
22. Governing law and dispute resolution. The Dutch Framework Agreement will be
    governed by Dutch Law, as will any disputes arising out of or in connection with the
    Dutch Framework Agreement. It will be subject to the Fast Track Dispute
    Resolution Procedure.
                                              93
 ---pagebreak---  Annexe IV
[Confidential]
        94