Final report of the Hearing Officer

(Case COMP/M.4187 — Metso/Aker Kvaerner)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2008/C 6/06)

On 4 April 2006, the Commission received a request for referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Merger Regulation), which was transmitted to the Member States. No Member State or EEA country competent to examine the concentration under its national competition law (Finland, Sweden, Poland, Germany and Norway) expressed its disagreement as regards the requested referral. Accordingly, the concentration was deemed to have a Community dimension pursuant to Article 4(5) of the Merger Regulation and should therefore be notified to the Commission.

Subsequently, on 23 June 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration by which Metso Corporation Oy (Metso) acquires sole control, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, of parts of the undertaking Aker Kvaerner ASA (Aker Kvaerner), namely its pulping and power business, by way of purchase of shares and assets.

After examining the notification the Commission found that, even taking into account commitments entered into by Metso on 24 July and modified on 27 July 2006, the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning with the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, on 11 August 2006, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 6 November 2006, Metso offered new commitments with a view to render the concentration compatible with the common market. These commitments were subsequently modified on 8 November 2006.

In view of the modified commitments and taking into account the result of an in-depth market investigation, the relevant Commission services considered, subject to full compliance with the commitments offered, that the serious doubts had been removed and that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the parties.

No queries or submission have been made to the Hearing Officer by the parties or any other third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.