26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/1

1.

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the UN Convention’) adopted by the General Assembly at its sixty-first session in December 2006 not only confirms that disability is a human rights issue and a matter of law, but also aims to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy human rights on an equal basis with others;

2.

the Declaration regarding persons with a disability annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam provides that the institutions of the Community shall take account of the needs of persons with disabilities in drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty;

3.

the Council adopted Conclusions in December 2003 on the follow up of the European Year of People with Disabilities, endorsing comprehensive social inclusion and the full achievement of equal opportunities for people with disabilities as objectives of the European Disability Action Plan for 2004-2010;

4.

the European Disability Action Plan 2004-2010 highlights three operational objectives: full implementation of the Employment Equality Directive (1), successful mainstreaming of disability issues in relevant Community policies, and improving accessibility for all;

5.

the basic principles aiming to ensure the equal effective enjoyment of human rights and freedoms by persons with disabilities under the UN Convention are: dignity and individual autonomy, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion in society and in the field of work, respect for difference, equality of opportunity, accessibility, equality between men and women, and the full enjoyment of all human rights by children;

6.

at the first informal ministerial meeting on disability issues of 11 June 2007, the UN Convention was endorsed as a fundamental step for the promotion, protection and full realisation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons with disabilities. Ministers undertook to further develop policies so as to ensure the full implementation of the Convention and called on the European Commission to ensure that the new priorities of the European Disability Action Plan contribute to the effective implementation of the UN Convention;

7.

in its Resolution on the Follow-up of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007) (2) adopted in December 2007, the Council called on the Commission and the Member States, in accordance with their respective competences, to continue the process of signature, conclusion and ratification of the UN Convention.

1.

the Commission Communication on the situation of disabled people in the European Union: the European Action Plan 2008-2009, which describes in tangible terms the European commitment to ensure that persons with disabilities are addressed as citizens and active socio-economic actors contributing to the construction of a sustainable and cohesive Europe offering equal opportunities for all. All the actions in this Plan aim to meet the individual and diverse needs of persons with disabilities;

2.

the results achieved in the implementation of the second phase of the European Disability Action Plan (2006-2007), which emphasises dignity, fundamental rights, protection against discrimination, fairness and social cohesion. It is now widely acknowledged that mainstreaming is a key to advancing disability issues and, accordingly, the Disability Action Plan encouraged activity and promoted access to social services while fostering accessible goods and services;

3.

the Commission's public consultation on new anti-discrimination measures to tackle discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in areas beyond employment;

4.

the progress achieved by the Member States and the European Community following the signature of the UN Convention;

5.

the convergence of the European Disability Action Plan and the UN Convention.

1.

persons with disabilities often remain disadvantaged and marginalised, especially in the field of work. Insufficient access to the labour market can mean that persons with disabilities are placed in vulnerable situations in society and exposed to serious risks of discrimination, poverty and social exclusion;

2.

although in some Member States the unemployment rate of persons with disabilities remains high, in other Member States the employment rates are rising. This proves that national as well as European efforts are increasingly effective and should be further pursued and improved;

3.

analyses of the most recent data confirm the strong correlation between disability and ageing. The number of older people including older people with disabilities is increasing, and there is a growing need in the Community for accessible goods, services and infrastructure. The social services sector is indeed expanding, and meeting the needs of the ageing population will also mean creating new jobs;

4.

the cumulative effect of gender and disability implies that women with disabilities often face multiple forms of discrimination, have less independence, less access to education, training, employment, and health services, and therefore often face a greater risk of exclusion, poverty and abuse.

1.

the EU Disability Strategy emphasises the importance of equal access to inclusive, quality education and lifelong learning, which are crucial for enabling persons with disabilities to participate fully in society and improve their quality of life;

2.

accessible built environments, transport and Information and Communication Technology (ICT), both in urban and rural areas, are crucial for the realisation of a society which provides genuine access to equal rights, offering its citizens real autonomy and the means to pursue independent and active economic and social lives. Such accessibility represents no less than a cornerstone of an inclusive society based on non-discrimination;

3.

disability statistics are needed to establish a picture of the overall situation of persons with disabilities in Europe. Such statistical and research data allow informed disability policies to be formulated and implemented at the different levels of governance;

4.

people with disabilities and their organisations at national, regional and local levels should be recognised by Member States as playing an important advisory role when decisions are made on disability matters and can also contribute to the implementation of decisions.

1.

strengthen efforts to prevent and combat discrimination based on disability, inside and outside the labour market, promoting access both to the labour market and to goods and services, in accordance with the non-discrimination framework strategy;

2.

present as soon as possible a proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the UN Convention and to implement the Convention in the areas of Community competence;

3.

support the effective implementation of the UN Convention at the different levels of governance, in particular following its conclusion by the Community and ratification by Member States, including through awareness-raising and by financing activities under existing Community programmes such as the Progress Programme (3).

1.

that people with disabilities enjoy their human rights in full, by:

2.

accessibility for people with disabilities:

3.

that work begins on a European disability strategy to succeed the current European Disability Action Plan 2004-2010, including by:

1.

to continue their coordination so as to communicate their needs to policy makers and to identify and analyse policy options;

2.

to participate in the development and implementation of the European Disability Action Plan and the United Nations Convention together with the Commission and Member States.

1.

maintain a dialogue (including with people with disabilities and their organisations, public authorities, and the social partners) in order to understand each other's needs and to generate consensual solutions;

2.

use the opportunities provided by their participation in the EU High Level Group on Disability to sustain the mainstreaming of disability issues in Community policies.

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/5

(1)

On 4 March 2008, the Council examined the updated stability programme of Spain, which covers the period 2007 to 2010 (2).

(2)

Spain has been enjoying a long period of sustained growth averaging 3,75 % over the last twelve years, well above the euro area (at around 2 %). Persistently low real interest rates and dynamic demographics have been feeding strong domestic demand and job creation as well as an unprecedented growth in the housing sector.

Moreover, successive labour market reforms significantly reduced structural unemployment. In parallel, a number of imbalances have emerged or persist, such as a widening external deficit and the inflation differential with the euro area, while productivity growth was consistently low. Regarding public finances, a successful expenditure-based consolidation process took place since the mid-nineties, which improved the government balance from a deficit of around 6 % of GDP to a close-to-balance position in 2000 and a comfortable surplus since 2005. Total tax receipts have grown by about 4,25 percentage points of GDP since the mid-nineties boosted by a tax-rich growth pattern. Going forward, population ageing might negatively impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances, mainly as a result of increasing pressure from pension expenditure.

(3)

The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will decelerate from 3,8 % in 2007 to 3,1 % on average over the rest of the programme period. Assessed against currently available information (3), this scenario appears to be favourable throughout the programme period. In 2008, inflationary pressures, lower growth expectations, as well as the developments in the housing sector are expected to weigh on disposable income and point towards lower GDP growth than projected in the programme. Also the growth composition presented in the programme is favourable, in particular concerning the adjustment path of the residential construction sector. While the programme expects a deceleration of investment in dwellings, the Commission services' autumn 2007 forecast projects a contraction of the sector, starting already in 2008, implying a stagnation of total investment in 2009. However, due to lower imports the contribution of net exports to growth could improve compared to the programme. Finally, the programme's projections for inflation appear on the low side in the light of the most recent available information on food and oil prices.

(4)

For 2007, the general government surplus is estimated at 1,8 % of GDP in the Commission services' autumn 2007 forecast, against a target of 1 % of GDP set in the previous update of the stability programme. Half of the difference can be explained by the positive base effect from 2006. The other half results from higher-than-targeted revenue growth in 2007, which was however partly offset by higher-than-budgeted expenditure growth. Recent information points to the possibility of a better final outcome above 2 % of GDP, owing to even higher-than-expected revenues in 2007, especially from direct taxes, reflecting the high dynamism of corporate profits. The better-than-expected budgetary outcomes in 2006 were used to pursue more ambitious budgetary targets than those set in the end-2006 update of the stability programme, although some municipal and regional expenditure overruns were recorded. The Council notes that budgetary implementation in 2007 was broadly consistent with the April 2007 Eurogroup orientations for budgetary policies.

(5)

Within the broad goal of maintaining macroeconomic and budgetary stability, the most recent update of the stability programme aims at respecting the medium-term objective (MTO), which is a balanced position in structural terms (i.e. in cyclically-adjusted terms net of one-off and other temporary measures), by a comfortable margin. The headline general government surplus is targeted to decline from 1,8 % of GDP in 2007 to 1,2 % of GDP in 2008 and to remain stable thereafter. The deterioration in 2008 stems from a small increase in the expenditure ratio and a decline in the revenue ratio by 0,5 percentage point of GDP. Direct taxes are expected to fall by 0,25 percentage point of GDP in 2008 as a result of lower economic growth and the ongoing impact of the 2007 tax reform. After 2008, revenue and expenditure components are assumed to remain broadly stable. The primary balance is planned to decline from an estimated surplus of 3,4 % of GDP in 2007 to 2,7 % in 2008, remaining broadly stable thereafter. The structural balance calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is projected to slightly decline from 2,25 % in 2007 to 1,75 % in 2008 and to increase to around 2 % in 2009 and 2010. Compared with the previous programme, the new update presents, building on the better-than-expected 2007 outturn, somewhat better targets for 2008 and 2009 against a broadly similar macroeconomic background.

(6)

The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced in 2008, but outcomes could be worse than projected in 2009 and 2010. Specifically, in 2008, the impact of possibly lower economic growth would be broadly offset by the positive base effect from higher revenues in 2007 than estimated in the programme. However, the favourable macroeconomic assumptions for 2009 and 2010 would not be compensated by other factors, which points to the risk of lower budgetary surpluses. In particular, tax revenue projections may turn out to be optimistic on the back of less buoyant corporate profits and housing market. On the other hand, Spain has a good track record of budgetary consolidation.

(7)

In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to maintain the MTO by a large margin throughout the programme period. The fiscal policy stance implied by the update is in line with the Stability and Growth Pact throughout the period. The Council notes that it is also consistent with the April 2007 Eurogroup orientations for budgetary policies for the year 2008. The projected weakening in the structural surplus in 2008 cannot be regarded as entailing a pro-cyclical stance but partly reflects a decline in the tax revenue as a percent of GDP resulting from a slowing of the economy and the fading housing boom.

(8)

Spain appears to be at medium risk with regard to the sustainability of public finances. The long-term budgetary impact of ageing is well above the EU average, mainly as a result of a relatively high increase in pension expenditure as a share of GDP over the coming decades. The budgetary position in 2007, reflected in a strong primary surplus as well as a low and decreasing debt ratio, contributes to offsetting the projected long-term budgetary impact of ageing populations. However, this is not sufficient to fully cover future spending pressures. Maintaining high primary surpluses over the medium term and implementing further measures aimed at curbing the substantial increase in age-related expenditures would contribute to reducing risks to the sustainability of public finances.

(9)

The stability programme is fully consistent with the October 2007 implementation report of the national reform programme (NRP). In particular, the update provides a qualitative assessment of the overall impact of the NRP within the medium-term fiscal strategy as well as sufficient information on the direct budgetary costs associated with some of the reforms envisaged in the NRP, e.g. R & D, education and infrastructures.

(10)

The budgetary strategy in the programme is broadly consistent with the country-specific broad economic policy guidelines and the guidelines for euro area Member States in the area of budgetary policies issued in the context of the Lisbon strategy.

(11)

As regards the data requirements specified in the code of conduct for stability and convergence programmes, the programme provides almost all required data and has some gaps in the optional data (4).

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/9

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32008M5037. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/10

(1)

By its Decision of 18 September 2006 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2006 to 17 September 2009.

(2)

Three members' seats on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Employees' representatives have become vacant as a result of the resignation of Ms Mar Rodrigues Torres, Mr Jeff Maes and Mr Jean-Claude Quentin.

(3)

Three members' seats on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Employers' representatives have become vacant as a result of the resignation of Mr George Pantelides, Mr Samo Hribar-Milic and Mr Anthony Thompson,

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/12

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/13

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/14

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission assessment of the product and the geographic scope of the agreements and/or concerted practices contained in the draft decision.

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission legal assessment of the facts as agreements and/or concerted practices within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission view that the infringements refer to four complex and continuous infringements.

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have as their object and/or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market.

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission that the agreements and/or concerted practices have appreciably affected trade between Member States.

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission draft decision as regarding the addressees of the decision.

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission as regarding the duration of the infringements and the application of limitation periods.

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's method of calculation of the fines.

9.

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

10.

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

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/15

—

The deadline for replying to the SO

Most of the addressees of the SO requested an extension of the deadline (two months from the date of receipt of the access to file DVD) to reply to the SO. I fixed new deadlines for the companies in question between 21 and 27 February 2006 in accordance with the pertinence of the reasons given to support their individual requests.

—

The preparation of a single SO and the organisation of the Commission's file

The relevant Commission service decided to send all companies implicated in the case a single SO that contained sections for all countries covered by the investigation regardless of whether the company in question was involved in the entirety of the respective countries or practices described. Furthermore, the Commission decided to grant all addressees of the SO access to the file concerning the entirety of these countries or practices (except for business secrets and other confidential information). The parties were given the opportunity to express their views to the Hearing Officer before access was given on this basis.

United Technologies Corporation, Schindler, OTIS and ThyssenKrupp claimed that the Commission should have sent distinct and separate SOs to the addressees in accordance with their involvement in the different national cartels and should have organised the file differently, given that the Commission had alleged the existence of separate national infringements rather than the existence of a pan European cartel. They considered that companies which were only accused of having participated in the infringement in one country should only have access to the documents in the file relating to the country in question. Furthermore, they took the view that the addressees of the SO involved in a cartel in a different country had no legitimate interest in seeing all documents in the Commission's file. Other parties took a contrary view.

In response, I considered that the relevant Commission service enjoys a certain margin of discretion in its decision jointly to investigate infringements that it considers to be related. I informed the parties that if there were objective reasons that had led the relevant Commission service to believe that a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the anticompetitive behaviour under investigation requires an exploration into different geographical markets at the same time, I was willing to accept this finding. Having examined carefully the manner in which the investigation had been carried out, the nature of the alleged infringements and the companies involved, it appeared to me that there were sufficient reasons to assume that the alleged infringements in the different markets in question were sufficiently linked to be subject of a common investigation. In particular, in the light of the specific factors involved, I considered the relevant Commission service had acted in an appropriate manner in maintaining a common investigation after reaching the provisional conclusion that the infringements at issue were four separate national cartels.

Concerning access to file, I consider that EC Competition Law and the jurisprudence of the Community Courts ensure sufficiently the protection of the companies' sensitive information and assured the companies that any piece of information for which they could put forward that the disclosure would cause significant and serious harm would be afforded special protection throughout the administrative proceedings. This principle was respected in the present case.

—

Access to additional documents

KONE requested access to additional documents, including, inter alia, a more comprehensive summary of the informant's submission to the Commission that had initiated the first inspections, and also an internal document of the Commission relating to the preparation of inspections in Germany. These documents were requested in order to prove that they should be granted full immunity under the Commission's Leniency Notice.

With regard to the informant's submission, the Commission is under a strict obligation to protect the identity of its informers against the danger of retaliation (1). In particular, where powerful companies are investigated for alleged infringements of competition law, the Commission has the duty to protect whistleblowers from the harsh reactions they might have to face should their identity be revealed. Accordingly, whilst I was able to single out a few further passages that in my view could be disclosed to KONE without risk of endangering the informant's anonymity, and which were subsequently made available, I otherwise endorsed the decision taken by the relevant Commission service not to grant access to the whistleblower's submission in this case.

With regard to the request for internal documents, according to the case law and the Commission's Notice on access to file, the Commission's internal documents are in principle inaccessible. I took the view that the mere allegation by a company that internal documents could be useful in the preparation of its defence cannot be sufficient to create an obligation on the part of the Commission to render these documents accessible. Otherwise, the rule of inaccessibility of such internal information would be reversed and the legitimate interest in keeping the Commission's internal deliberations secret seriously undermined. I consider that it is rather for the Commission services to verify themselves and, upon substantiated request, for the Hearing Officer to crosscheck, whether the Commission's internal documents contain factual evidence which could be indispensable for a party's defence. Upon verification, my view was that this was not the case in this particular instance. Accordingly, access was not granted.

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/18

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission, as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector, on the increase of the basic amount for ThyssenKrupp AG and it subsidiaries in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands due to an aggravating circumstance.

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission, as regards the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, or rewarding cooperation outside its scope.

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for the infringements in the elevators and escalators sector in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

5.

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

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/19

1.

The decision was addressed to KONE Belgium SA, KONE GmbH, KONE Luxembourg SARL, KONE BV Liften en Roltrappen, KONE Corporation (hereinafter ‘KONE’), Mitsubishi Elevator Europe BV, NV OTIS SA, Otis GmbH & Co. OHG, General Technic-Otis SARL, General Technic SARL, Otis BV, Otis Elevator Company, United Technologies Corporation (hereinafter ‘Otis’), Schindler SA/NV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH, Schindler SARL, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Holding Ltd (hereinafter ‘Schindler’), ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA, ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg SARL, ThyssenKrupp Liften BV, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp AG (hereinafter ‘ThyssenKrupp’).

2.

The addressees participated in four separate but related single and continuous infringements of Article 81 of the Treaty in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands regarding elevators and escalators. Each of the four infringements covered the whole territory of one of these Member States.

3.

The Commission initiated the investigation on its own initiative (‘ex-officio’) in early 2004 using information brought to its attention. Three rounds of inspections (Belgium, and Germany: January 2004; Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg: March 2004 and the Netherlands: April 2004) and a large number of leniency applications under the 2002 Leniency Notice confirmed that cartels were run in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The infringements covered both new installations and services, except in Germany where the evidence would suggest that only new installations were covered.

4.

All four cartels displayed some common elements, such as, for instance:

5.

The Statement of Objections was notified to the parties in October 2005. The addressees of the Statement of Objections did not request an oral hearing.

6.

The periods of infringements retained in the decision are:

7.

In particular, the following infringements were committed in one, several or all of the Member States concerned:

The infringements' main features also included exchange of commercially important and confidential market and company (internal) information including bidding patterns and prices. The participants met regularly to agree to the above restrictions and they monitored their implementation within the national markets. There is evidence that the companies were aware that their behaviour was illegal and they took care to avoid detection; their employees usually met in bars and restaurants, they travelled to the countryside or even abroad, and they used pre-paid mobile phone cards to avoid tracking.

8.

Regarding the gravity of the infringements, impact on the market and their geographic scope, the infringements must be qualified as very serious.

9.

The undertakings were divided into different categories according to their relative importance in the markets to account for the specific weight and therefore the real impact of each undertaking on the market.

10.

As the basis for comparing the relative importance of an undertaking in the market concerned, the Commission considered it appropriate to take the undertakings' Belgium-wide, Germany-wide, Luxembourg-wide and the Netherlands-wide turnovers, respectively. The comparison was made on the basis of these national-wide product turnovers in the last full year of the infringements: 2003 for all the undertakings concerned in respect of each of the four infringements, except for Schindler in Germany, for whom 2000 was the reference year, when it exited the cartel.

11.

As regards the infringement in Belgium, Schindler and KONE were jointly placed in a first, Otis in a second and ThyssenKrupp in a third category. As regards in infringement in Germany, KONE, Otis and ThyssenKrupp were placed in one category. Schindler, whose illegal behaviour was confined to escalators and who exited the cartel in 2000, was placed in a separate category. In respect of the infringement in Luxembourg, Otis and Schindler were jointly placed in a first category and Kone and ThyssenKrupp were jointly placed in a second category. Finally, as regards the infringement in the Netherlands, KONE was placed in a first, Otis in a second and Schindler in a third category. ThyssenKrupp and Mitsubishi were jointly placed in a fourth category.

12.

In order to set the amount of the fine at a level ensuring a sufficiently deterrent effect, the Commission considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor to the fines imposed.

13.

With their respective worldwide turnovers, ThyssenKrupp and Otis are much larger players than the other addressees. Accordingly, and in compliance with previous Commission decisions, the Commission considered it appropriate to multiply the respective fines for ThyssenKrupp and Otis.

14.

Individual multiplying factors were also applied according to the duration of the infringements by each legal entity.

15.

ThyssenKrupp was considered to have committed a repeated infringement, since two entities controlled by Krupp and/or Thyssen (before these two undertakings merged in 1999) had already been addressees of a previous Commission decision concerning cartel activities in Alloy Surcharge  (1). The fact that the undertakings have repeated the same type of conduct in the same or in different business fields shows that the initial penalties did not prompt them to change their conduct. This constitutes an aggravating circumstance justifying an increase in the basic amount of the fine to be imposed on ThyssenKrupp.

16.

KONE, Otis, ThyssenKrupp and Schindler submitted applications under the Leniency Notice. They co-operated with the Commission at different stages of the investigation with a view to receiving favourable treatment under the Leniency Notice.

17.

Otis was granted full immunity under point 8(a) of the Leniency Notice concerning a cartel in the Netherlands since it enabled the Commission to carry out inspections in the Netherlands.

18.

In respect of the infringements in Belgium and Luxembourg, KONE's submission enabled the Commission to find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Hence, KONE qualified for a full immunity from the fine in respect of the infringements in Belgium and Luxembourg.

19.

The evidence submitted by Otis relating to the cartels in Belgium and Luxembourg represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement. Otis was the first undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 40 % reduction of the fine for both infringements. Similarly, KONE's submission in relation to the cartel in Germany, as well as ThyssenKrupp's submission in relation to the cartel in the Netherlands, represented significant added value within the meaning of the Leniency Notice. These two undertakings were first to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice in relation to the respective cartels, and the Commission granted KONE a 50 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Germany and ThyssenKrupp a 40 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in the Netherlands.

20.

The evidence submitted by Otis relating to the cartel in Germany represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement in Germany. Otis was the second undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 25 % reduction of the fine for the infringement in Germany. Similarly, in respect of the infringement in Belgium, ThyssenKrupp's submission represented a significant added value within the meaning of the Leniency Notice. ThyssenKrupp was second to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 20 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Belgium.

21.

The evidence submitted by Schindler relating to the cartel in Germany represented significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission's possession, strengthening the Commission's ability to prove the infringement in Germany. Schindler was the third undertaking to meet point 21 of the Leniency Notice and was granted a 15 % reduction of the fine in respect of the infringement in Germany.

22.

The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by allocating tenders and other contracts among them in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, with a view to sharing markets and fixing prices, agreeing on a compensation mechanism in some cases, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, and, participating in regular meetings and other contacts to agree and implement the above restrictions:

In Belgium:

In Germany:

In Luxembourg:

In the Netherlands:

23.

For the infringements referred to in the previous recital, the following fines were imposed:

In Belgium:

In Germany:

In Luxembourg:

In the Netherlands:

24.

The undertakings listed in the previous recital shall immediately bring their infringement to an end, insofar as they have not already done so. They shall refrain from repeating any act or conduct as the infringement found in this case, and from any act or conduct having the same or similar object or effect.

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/25

1.

The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (1).

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3).

26.3.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/s3