ISSN 1725-2423 |
||
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155 |
|
English edition |
Information and Notices |
Volume 49 |
Notice No |
Contents |
page |
|
I Information |
|
|
Commission |
|
2006/C 155/1 |
||
2006/C 155/2 |
||
2006/C 155/3 |
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections ( 1 ) |
|
2006/C 155/4 |
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4279 — GDF/Camfin/Energie Investimenti JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 ) |
|
2006/C 155/5 |
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4225 — Celsa/Fundia) ( 1 ) |
|
2006/C 155/6 |
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4296 Goldman Sachs/Borealis/Associated British Ports) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 ) |
|
2006/C 155/7 |
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4230 — KPN/Heineken/ON) ( 1 ) |
|
2006/C 155/8 |
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4250 — Industri Kapital/Minimax) ( 1 ) |
|
2006/C 155/9 |
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4227 — Umicore/Solvay/Solvicore/JV) ( 1 ) |
|
|
Corrigenda |
|
2006/C 155/0 |
||
|
|
|
(1) Text with EEA relevance |
EN |
|
I Information
Commission
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/1 |
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
2,83 % on 1 July 2006
Euro exchange rates (2)
3 July 2006
(2006/C 155/01)
1 euro=
|
Currency |
Exchange rate |
USD |
US dollar |
1,2790 |
JPY |
Japanese yen |
146,66 |
DKK |
Danish krone |
7,4597 |
GBP |
Pound sterling |
0,69330 |
SEK |
Swedish krona |
9,2165 |
CHF |
Swiss franc |
1,5674 |
ISK |
Iceland króna |
96,56 |
NOK |
Norwegian krone |
7,9800 |
BGN |
Bulgarian lev |
1,9558 |
CYP |
Cyprus pound |
0,5750 |
CZK |
Czech koruna |
28,460 |
EEK |
Estonian kroon |
15,6466 |
HUF |
Hungarian forint |
282,53 |
LTL |
Lithuanian litas |
3,4528 |
LVL |
Latvian lats |
0,6960 |
MTL |
Maltese lira |
0,4293 |
PLN |
Polish zloty |
4,0405 |
RON |
Romanian leu |
3,5599 |
SIT |
Slovenian tolar |
239,64 |
SKK |
Slovak koruna |
38,420 |
TRY |
Turkish lira |
2,0165 |
AUD |
Australian dollar |
1,7214 |
CAD |
Canadian dollar |
1,4212 |
HKD |
Hong Kong dollar |
9,9345 |
NZD |
New Zealand dollar |
2,1067 |
SGD |
Singapore dollar |
2,0265 |
KRW |
South Korean won |
1 208,46 |
ZAR |
South African rand |
9,0837 |
CNY |
Chinese yuan renminbi |
10,2223 |
HRK |
Croatian kuna |
7,2371 |
IDR |
Indonesian rupiah |
11 702,85 |
MYR |
Malaysian ringgit |
4,684 |
PHP |
Philippine peso |
67,774 |
RUB |
Russian rouble |
34,3830 |
THB |
Thai baht |
48,685 |
(1) Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.
Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/2 |
Verification of environmental radioactivity monitoring facilities under the terms of Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty
Practical arrangements for the conduct of verification visits in Member States
(2006/C 155/02)
1. BACKGROUND
(1) |
Chapter 3, Health and Safety, of Title II of the Euratom Treaty is concerned on the one hand with the establishment of Basic Safety Standards for the protection of the health of workers and members of the public (Articles 30 — 33) and on the other hand specifically with the surveillance of levels of radioactivity in the environment (air, water, soil) as laid down in Articles 35 — 38. |
(2) |
Article 35 stipulates that: ‘Each Member State shall establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards. The Commission shall have the right of access to such facilities; it may verify their operation and efficiency.’ |
(3) |
Article 36 stipulates that: ‘The appropriate authorities shall periodically communicate information on the checks referred to in Article 35 to the Commission so that it is kept informed of the level of radioactivity to which the public is exposed.’ |
(4) |
Furthermore, Commission Recommendation 2000/473/Euratom of 8 June 2000 on the application of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the environment for the purpose of assessing the exposure of the population as a whole explains: ‘To ensure compliance with the Basic Safety Standards it is important that, in addition to air, water and soil, levels of radioactivity be determined in biological samples and in particular in foodstuffs, and …’ and ‘the monitoring of levels of radioactivity in soil does not allow a direct assessment of the exposure of the population. The exposure related to soil contamination is more directly assessed on the basis of … foodstuff contamination …’. Thus, Commission verifications under Article 35 also cover the monitoring of various biota (food, feed, vegetation). |
(5) |
Verifications under Article 35 were undertaken in the past, prior to 1 May 2004, in all Member States of the European Union. The practical arrangements for carrying out verifications were agreed on the basis of bilateral meetings held with the authorities concerned in the Member States in order to clarify the scope, intention and conduct of such verifications. Conclusions were subsequently laid down in bilateral protocols forwarded through the Permanent Representatives to the national authorities and approved by the Member States. |
(6) |
Following enlargement of the Community to 25 Member States, the need was felt to establish a common basis for Article 35 verifications in all Member States by means of a Commission Communication, which may be supplemented, if necessary, by bilateral protocols between individual Member States and the Commission services. |
2. APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 35
(7) |
Commission verifications cover facilities for environmental monitoring in the Member States, where they form part of a national network (‘nation-wide environmental monitoring’). Such networks may be automatic and/or laboratory-based and include both routine measurement of radioactivity in air, water, soil and different biota and the facilities intended to provide an alarm or data in the event of accidents. The latter are included insofar as information from such facilities may give rise to an increased sampling and measuring regime. |
(8) |
Furthermore, Commission verifications also cover all facilities for monitoring site-related environmental radioactivity as well as liquid or aerial discharges which are operated in installations or linked to activities with a potential for discharging radioactive substances into the environment such as:
The Commission holds the view that the environment starts where the discharges pass out of operational control and that Article 35 verifications therefore include the facilities for monitoring the aerial and liquid discharges of installations. Such facilities may be located within or outside the installation's premises. |
(9) |
As far as verifications as referred to in (8) are concerned, no distinction is made between monitoring facilities provided by national authorities and those provided by the plant operator in compliance with statutory requirements — both are included within the scope of the verification exercise. Generally, the verification covers all facilities for monitoring
|
3. SCOPE OF COMMISSION VERIFICATIONS
(10) |
The primary objective of the Commission's verifications is to satisfy itself of (i) the operation and efficiency of the facilities established for the measurement of environmental radioactivity and of radioactive discharges and (ii) the adequacy of the environmental monitoring programme. Efficiency and adequacy are assessed in relation to the overall approach developed at national level to ensure the protection of members of the public in compliance with the Basic Safety Standards. This approach is taken into account but is not itself subject to verification. |
(11) |
However, the scope of the conclusions to be drawn from the verifications does not include any assessment of the source or the magnitude of the environmental impact of discharges or the levels of radioactivity in the environment. |
(12) |
The Commission's role does not affect the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Basic Safety Standards, which remains with the individual Member State as stated in Article 33 of the Euratom Treaty. While building confidence in the trustworthiness of environmental monitoring information, verifications may however foster the harmonisation of methods for the measurement of environmental radioactivity and of radioactive discharges. |
(13) |
Commission verifications should enable a judgement to be made as to the:
|
(14) |
Part of the verifications consists in checking the consistency of the actual set-up of monitoring facilities with the information reported under Articles 36 or 37 of the Euratom Treaty. In particular, general data supplied under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty will be used where necessary to compare the originally planned environmental monitoring programme with the actual one. |
4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR SELECTING FACILITIES FOR VERIFICATION
(15) |
Verifications are generally performed in accordance with an annual programme set up by the Commission services. This programme will take into account general principles such as: adequate coverage of all Member States; inclusion of installations across the complete spectrum of the nuclear fuel cycle as well as nation-wide monitoring systems, NORM industries and hospitals. |
(16) |
The Commission will examine any request for verification by a third party. In such a case, Commission Services will first discuss the grounds of the request with the national authorities of the Member State on which territory the verification was requested before taking any decision on whether to perform a verification. |
5. PLANNING OF VISITS
(17) |
The duration of a visit will generally be five days, on the basis of a work programme defined in close collaboration with the Member State's competent authority. The visit may encompass
|
(18) |
The visits are announced as far as possible at least two months in advance so that the competent authority can make the necessary arrangements. Once the date of the visit is confirmed, the Commission services will inform the competent authority of the composition of the verification team, which normally comprises two to four representatives, possibly also including national experts on secondment to the Commission. |
(19) |
The Commission services will request information relevant for the preparation of the visit such as reports, descriptions, schematics, maps, etc. well in advance, in order to allow the competent authority to compile the information. |
(20) |
Should the Commission services intend to introduce onto any site visited a source of radioactivity (for example, for calibration purposes), they will indicate this in writing to the Member State, to allow for authorisation and registration procedures where necessary. |
(21) |
Member States will make all necessary arrangements so that the Commission's verification team is accompanied by representatives of the competent authority and, as appropriate, of the site and network operator. |
6. PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENTS
(22) |
The Member State where the verification is being carried out will take all appropriate measures to facilitate the Commission's task, as provided for in Article 192 Euratom. To this end, national authorities are expected to cooperate with the verification team at all stages of the verification. |
(23) |
All members of the Commission's verification team will act in conformity with the regulations laid down for safety and security at each location visited; these regulations include all the rules governing hygiene, radiological protection and security pertaining to each site. All members of the Commission's verification team will comply with the necessary entry formalities that apply to visitors. |
(24) |
The members of the Commission's verification team will be able to communicate with the authorities and plant operator personnel in a common, mutually understood language. It is understood that the host country will not be requested to provide for the translation of the documentation. However, the Commission services would highly appreciate it if the essential documents could be made available in electronic form prior to the scheduled visit, as this would increase the efficiency of the visit and facilitate any translation. |
(25) |
To carry out its mission, the Commission's verification team needs to consult such documents that are necessary to form a judgement on the operation and efficiency of the monitoring equipment. To this end, the Commission's verification team will consult reports and registers containing the results obtained from the monitoring facilities. |
(26) |
Copies of data and documents not in the public domain will not be taken away by any member of the Commission's verification team, except with the express agreement of the representative of the competent authority. |
7. REPORTING
(27) |
A technical report will be drawn up by the Commission's verification team and will serve as a basis for the main findings. Within six months after the visit or after the receipt of additional information requested during the visit, a draft version of this technical report will be sent to the competent authorities of the country visited, in order to have its factual accuracy checked. This is without prejudice to the exercise by the Commission of its rights as guardian of the Treaty, as provided for in particular in Article 141 of the Euratom Treaty. Comments by the competent authority on the draft technical report will be taken into consideration for the final version of the technical report. The technical report will be distributed as an annex to the main findings. |
(28) |
The main findings and recommendations arising from the verification exercise will be reported to the Commission, which will send a copy to the Member State visited. If the request for verification came from a third party, a copy will be sent to the latter. |
(29) |
The Commission's practice is to publish the main findings and the technical report, together with any comments by the Member State explicitly intended for this purpose, on the Commission's website with due respect for any concerns voiced by the Member State concerning proprietary and commercial issues. |
(30) |
The Member State visited may publish the main findings and the technical report in an unaltered form after publication by the Commission. |
(31) |
A general report on the Commission's verification programme will be drawn up at appropriate times for the attention of the European Parliament and Council. |
Clarification of some terms used in this Communication
Competent authority:
Any national regulatory body or authority designated or otherwise recognised as such for any purpose in connection with Article 35 Euratom.
Monitoring facility:
All (technical) equipment used for sampling, sample preparation or radioactivity or radiation measurement, including field and laboratory measurements. Monitoring facilities may be part of an automatic or a manual system, and may concern aerial or liquid discharges or environmental media.
Installation:
Premises with the potential to give rise to radioactive discharges; they include nuclear fuel cycle installations, mine tailings and waste repositories, and also medical, industrial and research establishments. Aerial and liquid discharges may occur at one or more locations (stacks, ducts, pipes).
National network:
Network operated by or on behalf of one or more national competent authorities. Generally, such a network may consist of several sub-networks, and will cover the whole country.
Network:
Automated or laboratory-based system for the surveillance of environmental radioactivity. An automated network may measure the ambient gamma dose rate, may sample surface air and measure aerosol-bound or gaseous radioactivity, or may measure gross or nuclide-specific activity in waters. A laboratory-based network may consist of different institutions that sample various environmental media, which are then analysed in laboratories. Generally, data are stored, processed and archived in a data centre. (A network that is designed to measure primarily high radiation levels (for warning and defence purposes) is not deemed to be within the remit of Article 35 verifications.)
Plant:
Used here as a synonym for ‘installation’ in specific contexts (e.g. reprocessing).
Discharge monitoring:
Technical, organisational and procedural provisions for analysing and evaluating (on-line or off-line) aerial or liquid discharges at the last point before leaving operational control. The corresponding facilities may be situated within the site of the installation or off-site. In a nuclear power plant, for example, this would include any facilities for sampling and measurement of such releases (whether in pipes or in holding tanks), control of release (such as valves), laboratory analysis of discharge samples or the calculation of released activity. The general objective is to register and evaluate the amount of radioactivity that is released to the environment where it could have an impact on the environment or — directly or indirectly — on the public. (It should be noted that Article 35 verifications do not deal with the activity levels of discharges per se, but rather with the methods and procedures used to monitor them, and would not cover any analysis done only for the operational control of the installation.)
Environmental monitoring:
Technical, organisational and procedural provisions for analysing the ambient radiation level and levels of radioactivity in the environment. On a national scale, this is usually achieved with one or more monitoring (automatic or laboratory-based) networks; environmental monitoring specific to a site may use automated networks or may be based on a pre-defined scheme of sampling and sample analysis procedures. The general objective is to register any impact on the environment (e.g. as regards activity concentrations in various media) and any changes of contamination with time, and ultimately to supply the basis for estimates of (population) exposure. (It should be noted that Article 35 verifications do not deal with the activity levels in the environment per se, but rather with the methods and procedures used to monitor them.)
Data Centre:
Facility equipped with storage and communication hardware and software and with appropriate procedures to acquire, store and archive data from monitoring activities. Data presentation may be in the data centre itself or in remote data presentation centres such as national or local supervising bodies.
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/6 |
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(2006/C 155/03)
(Text with EEA relevance)
Date of adoption of the decision:
Member State: Germany
Aid No: N 52b/2006
Title: Prolongation of N 655b/2001 — Promotion of emission reductions and climate protection in Saxony
Objective: Emission reduction and climate protection
Legal basis: Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft über die Gewährung von Fördermitteln für Vorhaben des Immissions- und Klimaschutzes einschließlich der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien
Budget: EUR 15,91 million
Duration: 2006-2008
The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/
Date of adoption:
Member State: United Kingdom
Aid No: N 318/2005
Title: Wave and tidal stream energy demonstration
Objective: Environmental protection/Energy protection
Legal basis: Science and Technology Act 1965 (Section 5)
Budget: EUR 58,8 million
Intensity or amount: Investment aid 25 % + GBP 100 per MWh operating aid.
Total max. aid per project GBP 9 million
Duration: Aid decision: 2005 — 2017
The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/
Date of adoption of the decision:
Member State: Germany
Aid No: N 497/2004
Title: Aid to the German coal industry for 2005
Objective: Support for coal production to contribute to the objective of energy security and the continuation of the coal industry restructuring process
Legal basis: Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 on State aid to the coal industry
Budget: Grants: EUR 2 709,8 million; loss of tax revenue: EUR 21,6 million
Aid intensity: The aid for the reduction of activity and the aid for production cover the difference between production costs and selling price. The aid intended to cover exceptional costs covers those arising from or having arisen from the restructuring of the coal industry
Duration: 2005
Other information:
1) |
Form of aid: Grants and tax reduction |
2) |
Beneficiaries: Three mining companies: RAG AG — EUR 2 704,2 million, Dr A. Schaefer Bergbau GmbH — EUR 0,5 million and Bergwerkgesellschaft Merchweiler GmbH — EUR 5,1 million |
3 |
Proposal: Decision not to raise any objections to this measure since it conforms to Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 on State aid to the coal industry |
The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/
Date of adoption of the decision:
Member State: Kingdom of the Netherlands Noord Brabant
Aid No: NN76/2005
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary): NV Monumenten Fonds Brabant
Objective: Heritage conservation
Form of aid: Direct grant — Soft loan
Legal basis: Article 158(1) (e) Provinciewet & Statenbesluit 76/03B inzake uitwerking bestuursakkoord
Type of measure: Individual aid
Budget: Overall aid amount planned (in millions of national currency): 4,8
Economic sectors: Limited to service activities
Duration: 2004-2007
Name and address of the granting authority:
Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Brabant |
Postbus 90151 |
5200 's-Hertogenbosch |
Nederland |
The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/8 |
Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.4279 — GDF/Camfin/Energie Investimenti JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(2006/C 155/04)
(Text with EEA relevance)
1. |
On 23 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking GDF International S.A.S. (‘GDFI’, France) controlled by Gaz de France S.A. and Camfin S.p.A. (‘Camfin’, Italy) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of Energie Investimenti by way of purchase of shares. |
2. |
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
|
3. |
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
4. |
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission. Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4279 — GDF/Camfin/Energie Investimenti JV, to the following address:
|
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/9 |
Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.4225 — Celsa/Fundia)
(2006/C 155/05)
(Text with EEA relevance)
1. |
On 22 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1), and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, by which the Celsa Group (‘Celsa’, Spain) through Steel Management Services S.L., (‘SMS’ Spain) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, sole control of Fundia (‘Fundia’, Norway) by way of a management agreement. |
2. |
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
|
3. |
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
4. |
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission. Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M. 4225 — Celsa/Fundia to the following address:
|
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/10 |
Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.4296 Goldman Sachs/Borealis/Associated British Ports)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(2006/C 155/06)
(Text with EEA relevance)
1. |
On 27 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (‘Goldman Sachs’ USA) and Borealis Infrastructure Management Inc. (‘Borealis’ Canada) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the whole of Associated British Ports Holdings PLC (‘AIB’, UK), via purchase of shares. |
2. |
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
|
3. |
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
4. |
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission. Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4296 Goldman Sachs/Borealis/Associated British Ports, to the following address:
|
(2) OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32; Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/11 |
Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.4230 — KPN/Heineken/ON)
(2006/C 155/07)
(Text with EEA relevance)
On 23 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:
— |
from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
— |
in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4230. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/11 |
Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.4250 — Industri Kapital/Minimax)
(2006/C 155/08)
(Text with EEA relevance)
On 26 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:
— |
from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
— |
in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4250. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/12 |
Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.4227 — Umicore/Solvay/Solvicore/JV)
(2006/C 155/09)
(Text with EEA relevance)
On 20 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:
— |
from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
— |
in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4227. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
Corrigenda
4.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 155/13 |
Corrigendum to Common Position (EC) No 3/2006 adopted by the Council on 8 December 2005 with a view to adopting Regulation (EC) No …/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of … on nutrition and health claims made on foods
( Official Journal of the European Union C 80E of 4 April 2006 )
On page 57, in the Annex titled ‘Nutrition claims and conditions applying to them’:
for:
‘LOW SUGAR
A claim that a food is low in sugar, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 5g of sugar per 100g for solids or 2,5g of sugar per 100ml for liquids.
SUGAR-FREE
A claim that a food is sugar-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 0,5g of sugar per 100g or 100ml.
WITH NO ADDED SUGAR’,
read:
‘LOW SUGARS
A claim that a food is low in sugars, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 5g of sugars per 100g for solids or 2,5g of sugars per 100ml for liquids.
SUGARS-FREE
A claim that a food is sugars-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 0,5g of sugars per 100g or 100ml.
WITH NO ADDED SUGARS’.