12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/1

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 11 January 2008

relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of the Oldbury power station, located in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2008/C 7/01)

On 1 February 2007, the European Commission received from the Government of the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of the Oldbury power station.

On the basis of these data, and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

1.	The distance between the power station and the nearest border with another Member State, in this case France, is approximately 220 km. Ireland is the next nearest Member State, located at approximately 270 km.

2.	During normal decommissioning operations, discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents are not liable to cause an exposure liable to affect the health of the population in other Member States.

3.

Irradiated fuel elements and solid low level radioactive wastes will be stored at the site before being transported off-site for reprocessing respectively disposal in facilities within the United Kingdom. Solid intermediate level radioactive wastes will be stored at the site awaiting government decisions regarding the choice of a long term repository solution. Non-radioactive solid waste or residual materials in compliance with clearance levels will be released from regulatory control for disposal as conventional waste or for reuse or recycling. This will be done in compliance with the criteria laid down in the Basic Safety Standards (Council Directive 96/29/Euratom).

4.	In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive waste that may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the doses received in other Member States will not be liable to affect the health of the population.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the decommissioning of the Oldbury Power Station in the United Kingdom, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in the radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 7/02)

Date of adoption of the decision	29.11.2007
Reference number of the aid	NN 65/07
Member State	Austria
Region	Wien
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Krebsforschung (LBI)
Legal basis	Vertrag zur Einrichtung des Ludwig Boltzmann Institutes für Krebsforschung
Type of measure	Individual aid
Objective	Research and development
Form of aid	Transactions not on market terms
Budget	Overall budget: EUR 4,308 million
Intensity	80 %
Duration	1.9.2005-31.8.2009
Economic sectors	Chemical and pharmaceutical industry
Name and address of the granting authority	Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur Abt. VI, Bereich Wissenschaft Rosengasse 2-6 A-1014 Wien
Other information	—

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	13.11.2007
Reference number of the aid	N 69/07
Member State	Malta
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Venture Capital Fund (Tax Credit) regulations
Legal basis	Income Tax Act (CAP 123) Venture Capital Fund (Tax Credit) regulations
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Risk capital
Form of aid	—
Budget	Annual budget: MTL 1 million; overall budget: MTL 10,9 million
Intensity	—
Duration	Until 31.12.2016
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Government of Malta, 13, St Paul's Street VLT 1210 Valletta
Other information	—

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	27.11.2007
Reference number of the aid	N 405/07
Member State	Netherlands
Region	Limburg
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Bioterials
Legal basis	Kaderwet EZ-subsidies; Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht; Algemene Subsidieverordening 2004; Nadere subsidieregels voor de bevordering van de economische ontwikkeling
Type of measure	Individual aid
Objective	Research and development
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Annual budget: —; overall budget: EUR 1,5 million
Intensity	60 %
Duration	—
Economic sectors	Chemical and pharmaceutical industry
Name and address of the granting authority	Ministerie van Economische Zaken Bezuidenhoutseweg 30 2055 EC Den Haag Nederland
Other information	—

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	3.10.2007
Reference number of the aid	N 421/07
Member State	Austria
Region	Wien
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	ZIT08plus
Legal basis	Richtlinie ZIT08plus. Technologie- und Innovationsförderung in Wien 2008-2011
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Innovation, Research and development, Small and medium-sized enterprises
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Overall budget: EUR 8,5 million
Intensity	80 %
Duration	1.1.2008-31.12.2011
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Magistrat der Stadt Wien/Magistratsabteilung 5 Ebendorferstraße 2 A-1010 Wien
Other information	—

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	18.10.2007
Reference number of the aid	N 486/07
Member State	Austria
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Richtlinien zur Förderung der wirtschaftlich-technischen Forschung und Technologieentwicklung — FTE-Richtlinien
Legal basis	Bundesgesetz zur Förderung der Forschung und Technologieentwicklung — FTFG
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Research and development, Innovation, Small and medium-sized enterprises
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 300 million; overall budget: EUR 2 100 million
Intensity	100 %
Duration	2007-31.12.2013
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie Renngasse 5 A-1010 Wien Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit Stubenring 1 A-1011 Wien
Other information	—

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/

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

11 January 2008

(2008/C 7/03)

1 euro=

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,4792
JPY	Japanese yen	161,18
DKK	Danish krone	7,4465
GBP	Pound sterling	0,7555
SEK	Swedish krona	9,398
CHF	Swiss franc	1,6312
ISK	Iceland króna	93,65
NOK	Norwegian krone	7,8185
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,908
EEK	Estonian kroon	15,6466
HUF	Hungarian forint	253,7
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,699
PLN	Polish zloty	3,582
RON	Romanian leu	3,6789
SKK	Slovak koruna	33,268
TRY	Turkish lira	1,7031
AUD	Australian dollar	1,6545
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5082
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	11,5417
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,8822
SGD	Singapore dollar	2,1191
KRW	South Korean won	1 386,82
ZAR	South African rand	10,1
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	10,742
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,35
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	13 956,99
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8207
PHP	Philippine peso	60,24
RUB	Russian rouble	36,048
THB	Thai baht	43,725
BRL	Brazilian real	2,6004
MXN	Mexican peso	16,1934

---

(1)  

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/7

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 418th meeting on 20 November 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR

(2008/C 7/04)

1.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the legal assessment made by the Commission, notably with the legal qualification of the facts as agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.

2.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have as object a restriction of competition.

3.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment on the duration of infringement, as being from 20 May 1996 until 28 November 2002.

4.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned.

5.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on addressees of the draft decision.

6.	Advisory committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7.	The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/8

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR

(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 7/05)

The draft decision in the above mentioned case gives rise to the following observations.

The present case was initiated following an application for immunity by the German company Bayer AG in December 2002 and January 2003 under the Commission notice of 20 June 2002 on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (1) (the Leniency Notice). Subsequently, on 27 March 2003, an inspection was carried out at the premises of Dow Deutschland GmbH & Co. OHG (now Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH).

On 7 June 2005, the Commission issued a first Statement of Objections. A second Statement of Objections replacing the previous statement was adopted on 6 April 2006. The reasons for this included: new evidence provided in the parties' replies to the Statement of Objections, and the need to clarify certain factual and legal circumstances, such as the liquidation of one original addressee and the addition of a new addressee.

In the second Statement of Objections the Commission took the preliminary view that the following 15 companies had participated in a cartel in infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

—

Bayer AG.

—	The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Deutschland Inc., Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH and Dow Europe GmbH.

—	Eni SpA, Polimeri Europa SpA, and Syndial SpA.

—	Shell Petroleum N.V., Shell Nederland B.V. and Shell Nederland Chemie B.V.

—	Unipetrol a.s. and Kaucuk a.s.

—	Trade-Stomil Ltd.

—	Chemical Company Dwory S.A.

The addressees of the Statement of Objections were granted access to the file in the form of a CD-ROM. Oral statements and documents related thereto, which had been made in the framework of the Leniency Notice, were made accessible at the Commission's premises. The parties were entitled to take notes, listen to tape recordings and/or read transcripts prepared by the Commission but were not permitted to make copies of the documents concerned.

Several parties requested an extension of the deadline to reply to the Statement of Objections, which were granted partially. All parties replied in due time.

Bayer AG's reply to the second Statement of Objections contained potentially incriminating as well as exculpatory elements. Accordingly, all parties to the proceedings received a copy of the reply and were invited to express their views on the content.

Most parties requested an oral hearing in accordance with Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. The hearing was held on 22 June 2006. All parties with the exception of Trade-Stomil Ltd were present at the hearing.

In light of the written and oral statements provided to the Commission services, the infringement as described in the Statement of Objections, has been revised: in particular the objections raised against two addressees (Chemical Company Dwory S.A. and Syndial SpA) have been dropped and the duration of the participation for three other parties (Unipetrol a.s., Kaucuk a.s. and Trade-Stomil Ltd) has been reduced.

Involvement of third party

On 22 December 2005, Manufacture Française des Pneumaticques Michelin (Michelin) was admitted to the proceedings as an interested third party under Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. It was accordingly informed of the nature and subject matter of the proceedings and invited to make known its views, which it subsequently did. Michelin also attended the oral hearing. Michelin was subsequently admitted as a complainant on the basis of a formal substantiated complaint pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, which was filed on 12 May 2006. In accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 Michelin received a non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections and was invited to make its views known. Michelin submitted its comments by letter dated 15 November 2006.

By letter dated 9 November 2006 addressed to me, Syndial SpA and Polimeri Europa SpA contested Michelin's status as a complainant in the proceedings and questioned the latter's right to receive a non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections. By letter dated 10 November 2006 I confirmed to Syndial SpA and Polimeri Europa SpA that the Commission had determined to grant Michelin the status as a complainant on the basis of a legitimate interest. Since Michelin, as a complainant, has a statutory right to receive a non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections and since the legitimate interest in confidentiality of Syndial and Polimeri had been taken into account by the Commission services, I informed the two companies that their submission would not require any further action on my part in the matter.

In my opinion the draft decision relates only to objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity to make known their views.

I consider that the right to be heard has been respected in this case for all participants to the proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2002, p. 3.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/10

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 419th meeting on 27 November 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR

(2008/C 7/06)

1.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

2.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure sufficient deterrent effect.

3.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

4.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

5.	The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

6.	The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7.	The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/11

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 29 November 2006

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR)

(notified under document number C(2006) 5700)

(Only the English, German, Italian and Polish versions are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 7/07)

SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

(1)	The addressees of this Decision participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the synthetic rubber industry involving two products: — Butadiene Rubber (BR), and — Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber (ESBR).

(2)	The infringement's main features included: agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging sensitive commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.

ADDRESSEES AND DURATION OF THE INFRINGEMENT

(3)

The Decision is addressed to 13 legal entities (belonging to 6 undertakings), which have participated in the infringement (some entities are held liable as parent companies): (a) for Bayer: Bayer AG from 20 May 1996 to 28 November 2002; (b) for Dow: The Dow Chemical Company from 1 July 1996 to 28 November 2002; Dow Deutschland Inc. from 1 July 1996 to 27 November 2001; Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH (formerly Dow Deutschland GmbH & Co. OHG) from 22 February 2001 to 28 February 2002; Dow Europe GmbH from 26 November 2001 to 28 November 2002; (c) for Enichem: Eni SpA and Polimeri Europa SpA from 20 May 1996 to 28 November 2002; (d) for Shell: Shell Petroleum N.V., Shell Nederland B.V. and Shell Nederland Chemie B.V. from 20 May 1996 to 31 May 1999; (e) for Kaucuk: Unipetrol a.s. and Kaucuk a.s. from 16 November 1999 to 28 November 2002; (f) for Stomil: Trade-Stomil Ltd from 16 November 1999 to 22 February 2000.

THE BR/ESBR INDUSTRY

(4)	Both BR and ESBR are synthetic rubbers primarily used in the tyre production. Other applications include golf balls and soles for shoes.

(5)	The investigation showed that the cartel covered the whole or the large majority of the EEA. The 2001 combined EEA market value for BR and ESBR was at least EUR 550 million.

PROCEDURE

(6)	In December 2002 and January 2003, the German company Bayer informed the Commission of the existence of cartels for BR and ESBR and expressed the wish to cooperate with the Commission under the 2002 Leniency Notice. In March 2003 an inspection took place at the premises of Dow.

(7)	About 6 months after the inspection Dow submitted a successful application for reduction of fines between 30 % and 50 %.

(8)

On 7 June 2005, the Commission initiated proceedings in this case, and adopted a first Statement of Objections which was notified to the addressees of the Decision (with the exception of Unipetrol a.s.) as well as Chemical Company Dwory S.A., Tavorex s.r.o and Syndial SpA. The Statement of Objections was never notified to Tavorex s.r.o, following the liquidation of that company. The procedure against Tavorex s.r.o has since been closed.

(9)	A second Statement of Objections was adopted on 6 April 2006. An Oral Hearing was held on 22 June 2006.

FUNCTIONING OF THE CARTEL

(10)	The Commission sets the starting date with the cartel meeting of 20 May 1996. The end of the cartel is set at 28 November 2002, which is the date of the discussions were it was decided to end the cartel.

(11)

The anti-competitive arrangements took place in the margin of the meetings of the European Synthetic Rubber Association (ESRA). At the surroundings of some but not all of the ESRA meetings, typically during dinner, at the bar, on the way to the dinner, at the hotel room of one of the participants or at a specifically hired conference room, the companies concluded price agreements for the products in the form of target prices or roll-over prices for the following quarter, shared customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging sensitive commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.

FINES

Basic amount

Gravity

(12)	Regarding the gravity of the infringement, impact on the market and its geographic scope, the infringement must be qualified as very serious.

Differential treatment

(13)	To reflect differences in turnovers of the 6 undertakings in BR and ESBR, they have been divided into 5 groups.

(14)	Eni and Bayer are placed in the first category. Dow has been placed in the second category. Shell has been placed in the third category. Unipetrol is placed in a fourth category, while Stomil is placed in a fifth category.

Sufficient deterrence

(15)

In order to set the amount of the fine at a level which ensures that it has sufficient deterrent effect it is appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fines imposed. Based on the turnover of the addressees in the most recent financial year preceding the Decision, the Decision applies a multiplication factor for Shell (3), Enichem (2), Dow (1,75), and Bayer (1,5).

Duration

(16)

Individual multiplying factors of 10 % per full year and 5 % for each period of 6 months or more will be applied according to the duration of the infringement by each company as set out at paragraph (3)(a)-(f) above. In the case of Dow, the increase for duration is lower taking into account that for the first three years of the infringement Dow did not own the BR/ESBR business which it acquired from Shell in 1999 and that in respect of the same period Shell is already receiving a fine.

Aggravating circumstances

Repeated infringements

(17)	At the time the infringement took place, Bayer, Enichem and Shell had already been subject to previous Commission prohibition decisions for cartel activities (1). This justifies an increase in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on these undertakings of 50 %.

Attenuating circumstances

(18)	Several undertakings claimed some or all of the following attenuating circumstances: cooperation outside the Leniency Notice and/or lack of implementation. These claims are all rejected as being unfounded.

(19)	Although Shell did not formally apply for leniency, its cooperation was evaluated according to the provisions of the 2002 Leniency Notice.

Application of the 10 % turnover limit

(20)	The fine for Stomil is reduced in consideration of the 10 % worldwide turnover limit set out under Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice

Immunity

(21)

Bayer was the first to inform the Commission of the existence of cartels for BR and ESBR on 20 December 2002 and 14 January 2003. On 5 February 2003, the Commission granted Bayer conditional immunity from fines in accordance with point 8(a) of the Leniency Notice. Bayer has co-operated fully, on a continuous basis and expeditiously throughout the Commission's administrative procedure and provided the Commission with all evidence available to it relating to the suspected infringement. Bayer ended its involvement in the suspected infringement no later than the time at which it submitted evidence under the Leniency Notice and did not take steps to coerce other undertakings to participate in the infringement. Hence, Bayer qualifies for a full immunity from fines and receives no fine.

Point 23(b), first indent (reduction of 30-50 %)

(22)

Dow was the first undertaking to meet the requirements of point 21 of the Leniency Notice, as it provided the Commission with evidence which represents significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession at the time of its submission and, to the Commission's knowledge, Dow terminated its involvement in the infringement no later than the time at which it submitted the evidence and its involvement has remained terminated. It qualifies, therefore, under point 23(b), first indent, for a reduction of 30 %-50 % of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed. Dow was awarded a reduction of 40 % of the fine.

Point 23(b), second indent (reduction of 20-30 %)

(23)

In its reply to the First Statement of Objections, Shell accepted that the facts, which the Commission was addressing, actually occurred, and pointed to additional, limited factual circumstances. Although no formal application for leniency has been made, the Commission proposes to consider the cooperation of Shell under the terms of the 2002 Leniency notice.

(24)	The Decision observes that at the time of Shell's cooperation, the information provided did not constitute significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, as the Commission was already able to prove the infringement in all of its main elements.

(25)	Based on the foregoing, the Decision does not consider that Shell is entitled to a reduction for its cooperation.

DECISION

(26)

For the infringements described herein, the following fines are imposed: (a) Bayer AG: EUR 0; (b) The Dow Chemical Company: EUR 64 575 000, of which: (i) jointly and severally with Dow Deutschland Inc., for EUR 60 270 000; (ii) jointly and severally with Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH and Dow Europe GmbH, for EUR 47 355 000; (c) Eni SpA and Polimeri Europa SpA, jointly and severally, EUR 272 250 000; (d) Shell Petroleum N.V., Shell Nederland B.V. and Shell Nederland Chemie B.V., jointly and severally, EUR 160 875 000; (e) Unipetrol a.s. and Kaucuk a.s., jointly and severally, EUR 17 550 000; (f) Trade-Stomil Ltd: EUR 3 800 000.

(27)	The addressees of the Decision are ordered to bring to an end immediately the infringement described herein, in so far as they have not already done so and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described herein, and from any act or conduct having an identical or similar object or effect.

---

(1)  Such decisions include: as regards Shell and Enichem: Commission Decision 86/398/EEC of 23 April 1986 (Polypropylene) (OJ L 230, 18.8.1986, p. 1); Commission Decision 94/599/EC of 27 July 1994 (PVC II) (OJ L 239, 14.9.1994, p. 14). As regards Bayer: Commission Decision 2002/742/EC of 5 December 2001 (Citric Acid) (OJ L 239, 6.9.2002 p. 18).

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/15

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 404th meeting on 13 March 2006 concerning a preliminary draft decision in Case COMP/38.173 — Joint selling of the media rights to the FA Premier League

(2008/C 7/08)

1.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the joint selling of the media exploitation rights by the English Football Association Premier League raises competition concerns under Article 81(1) of the Treaty and the proceedings in this case can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority disagrees.

2.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the Football Association Premier League's commitments introduce greater competition into the marketing of Premier League rights, provide a transparent and non-discriminatory sales procedure, ensure that no single purchaser will be able to buy all live TV rights, improve accessibility of content for TV, radio and new media operators and make sure that all rights are being made available to the market. A minority disagrees.

3.	The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that — in light of the commitments offered by the Football Association Premier League — there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority disagrees.

4.	The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments shall be binding on the Football Association Premier League for a period of six years or two contract rounds, i.e. until 30 June 2013. A minority disagrees.

5.	The majority of the Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. A minority disagrees.

6.	The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/16

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/38.173 — Joint selling of the media rights to the FA Premier League

(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 7/09)

The draft decision presented to the Commission under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 relates to the selling of media rights to the football matches of the English Premier League. The media rights are sold by the Football Association Premier League Ltd (FAPL) on behalf of the clubs which are members of the Premier League.

On 23 June 2001, the Commission opened an own initiative investigation into the FAPL's joint selling of the media rights of Premier League matches. On 21 June 2002, the FAPL notified in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 17/62, the applicable law at the time, parts of its rules and regulations concerning the joint selling of the media rights to the Premier League with a view to obtaining a negative clearance or, failing this, an individual exemption under Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.

In its Statement of Objections addressed to the FAPL on 17 December 2002, the Commission raised concerns as to the compatibility of the horizontal joint selling arrangements put in place by the football clubs in the Premier League with Article 81(1) of EC Treaty and concluded that the arrangements did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.

For the purposes of the present decision, this Statement of Objections is now considered to constitute a preliminary assessment in the meaning of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

On 18 March 2003, the FAPL submitted a formal reply to the Statement of Objections, denying that the arrangements restricted competition. They waived their right to an oral hearing. A number of third parties were admitted to the procedure having demonstrated a sufficient interest. Ensuing discussions with the Commission services led the FAPL to submit a provisional set of commitments by December 2003.

On 30 April 2004, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62, inviting interested companies to transmit their potential observations on this notification. In response to this invitation, a number of observations were received, which mainly did not confirm the effectiveness of the commitments proposed by FAPL.

As a result of the applicability as from 1 May 2004 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the application made by FAPL lapsed in accordance with Article 34 of this regulation but the procedural steps already taken continued to develop their effects for the purpose of applying Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

Following the third party comments on the Notice issued pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62, further discussions between the Commission and the FAPL led to the submission of a revised set of proposed commitments in November 2005.

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the commitments proposed by the FAPL in response to the Statement of Objections and as later amended to take account of the relevant observations by third companies, and without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, there are no longer grounds for action.

In a Decision under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, a breach of the competition rules is not established, but the Parties accept to remedy the concerns expressed by the Commission in a preliminary assessment. There is in this process a willingness on both sides to simplify the administrative and legal requirements which are inherent in a full investigation of a suspected infringement. This is the reason why in several Decisions taken already by the College (1), it has been accepted that due process is satisfied when the Parties inform the Commission that they have received sufficient access to the information that they considered necessary to propose commitments in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.

This case has also been dealt with in the same manner, the FAPL having submitted a Declaration to the Commission to this effect on 2 March 2006.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard have been respected in this case.

---

(1)  Cf. decision of 22 June 2005 in Case COMP/39.116 — Coca-Cola and decision of 19 January 2005 in Case COMP/37.214 — DFB.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/18

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 22 March 2006

relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty

(Case COMP/38.173 — Joint selling of the media rights to the FA Premier League)

(notified under document number C(2006) 868)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2008/C 7/10)

On 22 March 2006, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business interests. A non-confidential version of the full text of the decision can be found in the authentic language of the case, at DG COMP web-site at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index/by_nr_76.html#i38_173

(1)

The decision concerns the Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL). The subject matter of the procedure is the horizontal joint selling arrangements put in place by the football clubs in the Premier League for the exploitation in the United Kingdom of media rights to Premier League football matches.

(2)	In a preliminary assessment, the Commission considered that certain aspects of these horizontal joint selling arrangements raised concerns as to their compatibility with Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and that the arrangements did not fulfill the criteria set out in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.

(3)

Following the preliminary assessment, the FAPL proposed commitments, which were later amended to take account of the relevant observations by interested third parties. The Commission considers that these commitments are now sufficient to address the concerns identified by its preliminary assessment and the observations submitted by interested third parties.

(4)

The commitments introduce greater competition into the marketing of Premier League rights, provide a transparent and non-discriminatory sales procedure, ensure that no single purchaser will be able to buy all live TV rights, improve accessibility of content for television, radio and new media operators, and make sure that all rights are being made available to the market.

(5)

The decision concludes that in view of the commitments offered by the FAPL, as amended to take account of the relevant observations by interested third parties, there are no longer grounds for the Commission to take action within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the proceeding should be brought to an end.

(6)	The Commitments shall be binding on the FAPL and shall apply to the marketing, sale and exploitation of Premier League rights for six seasons with effect from the 2007/2008 season.

(7)	The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 13 March 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/19

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 7/11)

Reference number of the aid	XT 99/07
Member State	Italy
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Invito per la realizzazione di attività di formazione continua a sostegno del Mezzogiorno
Legal basis	Art. 118 della legge 19 dicembre 2000, n. 388 (GU 302 del 29 dicembre 2000) Art. 48 della legge 27 dicembre 2002, n. 289 (GU 305 del 31 dicembre 2002) Art. 1, comma 151, della legge 30 dicembre 2004, n. 311 (GU 306 del 31 dicembre 2004) Art. 13, comma 13, del decreto legge 14 marzo 2005, n. 35, convertito nella legge 14 maggio 2005, n. 80 (GU 111 del 14 maggio 2005)
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 1 million; overall budget: —
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation
Date of implementation	22.10.2007
Duration	31.12.2008
Objective	General training; Specific training
Economic sectors	All sectors eligible for training aid
Name and address of the granting authority	Fondartigianato — Fondo Artigianato Formazione Via di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, 63 I-00185 Roma

Reference number of the aid	XT 100/07
Member State	Italy
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Invito per la realizzazione di attività di formazione continua per specifiche aree di intervento
Legal basis	Art. 118 della legge 19 dicembre 2000, n. 388 (GU 302 del 29 dicembre 2000) Art. 48 della legge 27 dicembre 2002, n. 289 (GU 305 del 31 dicembre 2002) Art. 1, comma 151, della legge 30 dicembre 2004, n. 311 (GU 306 del 31 dicembre 2004) Art. 13, comma 13, del decreto legge 14 marzo 2005, n. 35, convertito nella legge 14 maggio 2005, n. 80 (GU 111 del 14 maggio 2005)
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 5,367285 million; overall budget: —
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation
Date of implementation	22.10.2007
Duration	31.12.2008
Objective	General training; Specific training
Economic sectors	All sectors eligible for training aid
Name and address of the granting authority	Fondartigianato — Fondo Artigianato Formazione Via di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, 63 I-00185 Roma

Reference number of the aid	XT 101/07
Member State	Italy
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Invito per la realizzazione di attività di formazione continua —– Priorità regionali
Legal basis	Art. 118 della legge 19 dicembre 2000, n. 388 (GU 302 del 29 dicembre 2000) Art. 48 della legge 27 dicembre 2002, n. 289 (GU 305 del 31 dicembre 2002) Art. 1, comma 151, della legge 30 dicembre 2004, n. 311 (GU 306 del 31 dicembre 2004) Art. 13, comma 13, del decreto legge 14 marzo 2005, n. 35, convertito nella legge 14 maggio 2005, n. 80 (GU 111 del 14 maggio 2005)
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 13,41822 million; overall budget: —
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation
Date of implementation	22.10.2007
Duration	31.12.2008
Objective	General training; Specific training
Economic sectors	All sectors eligible for training aid
Name and address of the granting authority	Fondartigianato — Fondo Artigianato Formazione Via di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, 63 I-00185 Roma

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/21

---

Notice of initiation of a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand

(2008/C 7/12)

The Commission has decided on its own initiative to initiate a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of sweet corn originating in Thailand initiated pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Communities (1) (‘the basic Regulation’). The reopening is limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as one exporting producer, Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Limited (‘Kuiburi’ or ‘the company’), is concerned.

1.   Product

The product concerned is sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, normally declared within CN code ex 2001 90 30, and sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata) in kernels prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading 2006, normally declared within CN code ex 2005 80 00, originating in Thailand.

2.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force for Kuiburi are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (2) on imports of the product concerned originating in Thailand.

3.   Grounds for the review

The Commission deems it necessary to reassess the factors which have given rise to the duties on imports on the product concerned by Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 with regard to the company, in view of the company's application to the Court of First Instance lodged on 30 August 2007 in Case T-330/07.

Without prejudice to the position which the Community institutions will take should that case be pursued by the applicant, the Commission notes that during the proceeding, the applicant was the only non-sampled exporting producer who supplied a fully completed questionnaire and thus all necessary information in the sense of Article 17 paragraph 3 of the basic Regulation.

4.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the initiation of a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation is justified, the Commission hereby initiates a partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand initiated under Article 5 of the basic Regulation by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (3).

The Commission will examine the information submitted by Kuiburi during the original anti-dumping proceeding.

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information and provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within the time limit set in paragraph 5(a) of this notice.

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in paragraph 5(b) of this notice.

5.   Time limits

(a)   For parties to make themselves known and to submit information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit any information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

(b)   Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40-day time limit.

6.   Written submissions and correspondence

All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax, and/or telex numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as ‘Limited’ (4) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’.

Commission address for correspondence:

European Commission

Directorate General for Trade

Directorate H

Office: J-79 4/23

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 295 65 05

7.   Non-cooperation

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

8.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, according to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation, within, in principle, 12 months, but at the most 15 months, of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

9.   Processing of personal data

It is noted that any personal data collected in this investigation will be treated in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (5).

10.   Hearing Officer

It is also noted that if interested parties consider that they are encountering difficulties in the exercise of their rights of defence, they may request the intervention of the Hearing Officer of DG Trade. He acts as an interface between the interested parties and the Commission services, offering, where necessary, mediation on procedural matters affecting the protection of their interests in this proceeding, in particular, with regard to issues concerning access to the file, confidentiality, extension of time limits and the treatment of written and/or oral submission of views. For further information and contact details, interested parties may consult the Hearing Officer's web pages on the website of DG Trade (http://ec.europa.eu/trade).

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

(2)  OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 14.

(3)  OJ C 75, 28.3.2006, p. 6.

(4)  This means that the document is for internal use only. It is protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1) and Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

(5)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/23

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4963 — Rexel/Hagemeyer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 7/13)

1.

On 4 January 2008, 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 Rexel SA (‘Rexel’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the activities of the undertaking Hagemeyer N.V. (‘Hagemeyer’, The Netherlands) in the following EEA Member States: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany (except for six branches), Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, as well as in Russia, and the worldwide Agencies and Consumer Electronics Business (‘ACE Business’) of Hagemeyer, by way of a public bid announced on 21 December 2007.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — for Rexel: wholesale distribution of electrical products; heating, ventilation and air-conditioning products (‘HVAC’); white and brown products; and marginal volumes of personal protection items for professionals, — for Hagemeyer: wholesale distribution of electrical products; HVAC products; white and brown products; maintenance, repair and operations products (including personal protection items for professionals); as well as (through its ACE Business) wholesale distribution of certain consumer electronic products in the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, and distribution of certain luxury goods (watches, fashion products and cosmetics) in Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, South Korea and Indonesia.

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.

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4963 — Rexel/Hagemeyer, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/24

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5029 — Sonepar/Rexel Germany)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 7/14)

1.

On 4 January 2008, 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 Sonepar SA (‘Sonepar’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of all the business activities of the undertaking Rexel SA in Germany and Luxembourg (‘Rexel Germany’) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — for Sonepar: wholesale distribution of electrical products and installation material, as well as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning products (‘HVAC’), and household and consumer electronics, — for Rexel Germany: wholesale distribution of electrical products and installation material; HVAC products, and household and consumer electronics.

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.

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5029 — Sonepar/Rexel Germany, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/25

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4949 — Sonepar/Hagemeyer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 7/15)

1.

On 7 January 2008, 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 Sonepar SA (‘Sonepar’, France) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of all the business activities of the undertaking Hagemeyer N.V. (‘Hagemeyer’, The Netherlands) in Austria, Sweden, and a small part of its activity in Germany, by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — for Sonepar: wholesale distribution of electrical products and installation material, as well as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning products (‘HVAC’), and household and consumer electronics, — for Hagemeyer: wholesale distribution of electrical products; HVAC products; household and consumer electronics; maintenance, repair and operations products (including personal protection items for professionals).

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.

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 ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4949 — Sonepar/Hagemeyer, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/26

---

Corrigendum to information supplied by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment

( Official Journal of the European Union C 239 of 11 October 2007 )

(2008/C 7/16)

On page 6, Aid XE 25/07 reads as follows:

---

(1)  With the exception of the shipbuilding sector and other sectors subject to special rules in regulations and directives governing all State aid within the sector.’

---