Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3436 — Continental/Phoenix

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 303/07)

On 12 May 2004 the Commission received notification, pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, of a proposed merger by which Continental AG wished to acquire sole control over Phoenix AG, both undertakings being leaders on the rubber products manufacturing market.

Having examined the information submitted by the parties to the proposed merger and conducted a market survey, the Commission concluded that the merger raised serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement.

Market participants were consulted about the effectiveness of the commitments proposed by the parties with a view to amending the original proposal, but these were considered to be not sufficient to prevent serious doubts. On 29 June 2004, therefore, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for by Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 3 September the Commission sent the parties a statement of objections. A CD-Rom was also sent to them, giving them access to the file. They replied to the statement of objections on 17 September 2004. They waived a formal hearing.

Following the replies to the statement of objections, the Commission continued to have doubts about the following markets: air springs for cars and utility vehicles and heavy steel cord conveyor belts. It dropped the objection concerning the market for rail vehicle air springs.

On 1 October 2004 the parties proposed further commitments amending the original merger proposal, about which market participants were also consulted.

In view of these commitments, and of the replies from market participants, it was considered that the merger could be authorised.

No questions have been addressed to me by the parties or third parties. The case calls for no special comment concerning the right to be heard.