Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8896 — Macquarie Group/The Goldman Sachs Group/HES International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 340/01)

On 23 July 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

—	in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8896. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

Updating of data used to calculate lump sum and penalty payments to be proposed by the Commission to the Court of Justice in infringement proceedings

(2018/C 340/02)

I.   INTRODUCTION

The 2005 Commission Communication on the application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty (1) (now Article 260(1) and (2) of the TFEU) established the basis on which the Commission calculates the amount of the financial sanctions (either lump sum or penalty payments) that it requests the Court of Justice to apply when the Commission brings a case before the Court under Article 260(2) TFEU, in the context of infringement proceedings against a Member State.

In its Communication of 2010 (2) on the updating of the data used for this calculation, the Commission established that these macroeconomic data should be adjusted every year, in order to take into account inflation and GDP movements.

The 2011 Commission Communication on the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU (3) and the 2017 Commission Communication ‘EU law: Better results through better application’ (4) emphasise that the same method as established by the 2005 Communication applies for the calculation of the financial sanctions which the Commission requests the Court of Justice to apply under Article 260(3) TFEU.

The yearly update provided in this Communication is based on developments in the inflation and GDP of each Member State (5). The relevant statistics that are to be used relating to the rate of inflation and GDP are those established two years prior to the update (‘t-2 rule’), as two years is the minimum period of time necessary for gathering relatively stable macroeconomic data. This Communication is therefore based on economic data for nominal GDP and the GDP deflator for 2016 (6), as well as the current weighting of Member State voting rights in the Council.

II.   COMPONENTS OF THE UPDATE

The list of economic criteria to be updated is as follows:

—	the standard flat-rate amount for the penalty payment (7), currently fixed at EUR 700 per day, to be revised in line with inflation,

—	the standard flat-rate amount for the lump sum payment (8), currently fixed at EUR 230 per day, to be revised in line with inflation,

—	the special ‘n’ factor (9), to be revised in line with the GDP of the Member State in question, taking into account the number of voting rights it has in the Council; the ‘n’ factor is identical for the calculation of lump sum and daily penalty payments,

—	minimum lump sum payments (10) to be revised in line with inflation.

III.   UPDATES

The Commission will apply the following updated figures to calculate the amount of the financial sanctions (lump sum or penalty payments) when it brings a case to the Court of Justice under Article 260(2) and (3) TFEU:

(1)	the standard flat-rate amount for calculating the penalty payment is fixed at EUR 690 per day;

(2)	the standard flat rate for the lump sum payment is fixed at EUR 230 per day;

(3)

the special ‘n’ factor and the minimum lump sum for the 28 EU Member States are set as follows: Member State Special ‘n’ factor Minimum lump sum (EUR 1 000 ) Belgium 4,89 2 790 Bulgaria 1,51 862 Czech Republic 3,16 1 803 Denmark 3,03 1 729 Germany 20,74 11 835 Estonia 0,63 359 Ireland 3,02 1 723 Greece 3,14 1 792 Spain 11,93 6 808 France 17,46 9 963 Croatia 1,24 708 Italy 15,16 8 651 Cyprus 0,59 337 Latvia 0,69 394 Lithuania 1,13 645 Luxembourg 1,00 571 Hungary 2,54 1 449 Malta 0,38 217 Netherlands 6,56 3 743 Austria 4,08 2 328 Poland 7,36 4 200 Portugal 3,24 1 849 Romania 3,35 1 912 Slovenia 0,87 496 Slovakia 1,64 936 Finland 2,67 1 524 Sweden 4,68 2 671 United Kingdom 18,10 10 328

The Commission will apply the updated figures to decisions it takes to bring a case before the Court of Justice under Article 260 TFEU as from the adoption of this Communication.

---

(1)  SEC(2005) 1658 (OJ C 126, 7.6.2007, p. 15).

(2)  SEC(2010) 923/3. This Communication has been updated in 2011 [SEC(2011) 1024 final], in 2012 [C(2012) 6106 final], in 2013 [C(2013) 8101 final], in 2014 [C(2014) 6767 final], in 2015 [C(2015) 5511 final], in 2016 [C(2016) 5091 final] and in 2017 [C(2017) 8720 final] for the yearly adjustment of economic data.

(3)  OJ C 12, 15.1.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10.

(5)  According to the general rules set out in the Communications of 2005 and 2010.

(6)  The GDP deflator is used as a measure of inflation. The uniform amounts for lump sum and penalty payments are rounded to the nearest multiple of ten. The minimum lump sums are rounded to the nearest thousand. The ‘n’ factor is rounded to two decimal places.

(7)  The standard or uniform flat-rate amount for daily penalty payments is defined as the fixed basic amount to which certain multiplier weightings are applied. The weightings are the coefficients for the seriousness and the duration of the infringement and the special ‘n’ factor corresponding to the Member State concerned.

(8)  The flat-rate amount is to be applied when calculating the lump sum. As regards Article 260(2) TFEU, the lump sum will result from multiplying a daily amount (resulting from multiplying the standard flat-rate amount by the coefficient for seriousness, and the result of this calculation being multiplied by the special ‘n’ factor) by the number of days the infringement persists between the date of the first judgment and the date that the infringement comes to an end or the date of delivery of the judgment under Article 260(2) TFEU. As regards Article 260(3) TFEU, according to point 28 of the Commission Communication on ‘Implementation of Article 260(3) of the Treaty’ (SEC(2010) 1371 final; OJ C 12, 15.1.2011, p. 1), the lump sum will result from multiplying a daily amount (resulting from multiplying the standard flat-rate amount by the coefficient for seriousness, and the result of this calculation being multiplied by the special ‘n’ factor) by the number of days from the day after the expiry of the time limit for transposition set out in the directive until the date that the infringement comes to an end or the date of delivery of the judgment under Articles 258 and 260(3) TFEU. The lump sum calculated on the basis of the daily amount should apply when the result of the abovementioned calculation exceeds the minimum lump sum.

(9)  The special ‘n’ factor takes into account the capacity of the Member States to pay (gross domestic product (GDP)) and the number of votes it has in the Council.

(10)  The minimum fixed lump sum payment is determined for each Member State according to the special ‘n’ factor. The minimum fixed lump sum will be proposed to the Court when the summed-up daily lump sum payments do not exceed the minimum fixed lump sum.

COMMISSION NOTICE

Availability and applicability of a guidance document to implement Points 3.6.5 and 3.8.2 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards endocrine disrupting properties

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 340/03)

The ‘Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009’ (1) was developed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with the support of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). It provides guidance to applicants and assessors of competent regulatory authorities on how to apply the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties introduced by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 (2). These scientific criteria are applicable from 10 November 2018 to on-going and future applications for approval or renewal of active substances, safeners or synergists under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3).

During the development of this guidance document, EFSA and ECHA consulted on several occasions Member States, stakeholders, and the general public. In addition, Member States discussed case-studies in a workshop organised by the European Commission, EFSA and ECHA for this purpose on 1-2 February 2018. Furthermore, the final draft of the guidance document was discussed at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (Section Phytopharmaceuticals — Legislation) on 25 May 2018. The development of the guidance and the comments received by the agencies are documented and published by EFSA and ECHA.

On 5 June 2018, EFSA and ECHA adopted the guidance document and published it on 7 June 2018. Consequently, the guidance document is available before the scientific criteria laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/605 become applicable.

In consultation with the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed and aiming at a harmonised and efficient application of the scientific criteria introduced by Regulation (EU) 2018/605, the Commission notifies that the published guidance document is to be used for the purposes of application of points 3.6.5 and 3.8.2 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as of the date of application of Regulation (EU) 2018/605 (10 November 2018).

---

(1)  European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with support from the Joint Research Centre (JRC). Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5311.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (OJ L 101, 20.4.2018, p. 33).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1).

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 September 2018

(2018/C 340/04)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,1759
JPY	Japanese yen	132,44
DKK	Danish krone	7,4597
GBP	Pound sterling	0,89400
SEK	Swedish krona	10,3315
CHF	Swiss franc	1,1228
ISK	Iceland króna	129,40
NOK	Norwegian krone	9,5793
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,585
HUF	Hungarian forint	324,05
PLN	Polish zloty	4,2946
RON	Romanian leu	4,6581
TRY	Turkish lira	7,3935
AUD	Australian dollar	1,6154
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5197
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	9,1840
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,7606
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,6042
KRW	South Korean won	1 312,42
ZAR	South African rand	16,8918
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	8,0503
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,4278
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	17 424,92
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,8565
PHP	Philippine peso	63,657
RUB	Russian rouble	78,5108
THB	Thai baht	38,140
BRL	Brazilian real	4,7920
MXN	Mexican peso	22,2132
INR	Indian rupee	84,8905

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting on 10 July 2018 concerning a draft decision in case AT.40181 — Philips

Rapporteur: Sweden

(2018/C 340/05)

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40181 — Philips

(2018/C 340/06)

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

Summary of Commission Decision

of 24 July 2018

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union

(Case AT.40181 — Philips (vertical restraints))

(notified under document number C(2018)4797 final)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2018/C 340/07)

On 24 July 2018, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 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, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

(1)

The Decision is addressed to Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips France S.A.S. (collectively ‘Philips’). Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a technology company headquartered in the Netherlands. During the infringement period Philips France S.A.S. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koninklijke Philips N.V.

(2)

The Decision relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). In violation of Article 101 TFEU Philips France S.A.S. implemented practices in relation to products sold by its Consumer Lifestyle business organisation, aimed at restricting the ability of retailers in France to determine their resale prices independently.

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

(3)

The case against Philips originated from unannounced inspections on 3 December 2013 at the premises of Philips in the Netherlands and Philips S.p.A. in Italy for suspected resale price maintenance (‘RPM’) with regard to Philips' Consumer Lifestyle products. Subsequently, Philips indicated its interest to cooperate with the Commission and submitted further evidence regarding the relevant conduct.

(4)

On 10 March 2015, the Commission carried out an unannounced inspection at the premises of an online retailer in France selling inter alia Philips' products.

(5)

On 2 February 2017 the Commission opened proceedings with a view to taking a decision under Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

(6)

Subsequently, Philips submitted a formal offer to cooperate in view of the adoption of a decision pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

(7)

On 7 June 2018, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections addressed to Philips. On 15 June 2018, Philips submitted its reply to the Statement of Objections.

(8)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 10 July 2018.

(9)

The Commission adopted the Decision on 24 July 2018.

2.2.   Addressees and duration

(10)

The following undertaking has infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating, during the period indicated below, in anti-competitive practices: Undertaking Duration Philips France S.A.S. 21 November 2011 – 20 November 2013

2.3.   Summary of the infringement

(11)

The local sales organisation concerned is Philips' Consumer Lifestyle business in France which was operated by Philips France S.A.S. during the infringement period.

(12)

Employees and senior management of Philips' Consumer Lifestyle business in France regularly monitored the resale prices of retailers and regularly requested and obtained the agreement of retailers to increase their resale prices. This was achieved by way of putting commercial pressure on lowest-pricing retailers and, in some cases, by taking retaliatory measures against non-compliant retailers.

(13)

Interventions were also prompted by complaints from retailers regarding their competitors' resale prices.

(14)

By closely monitoring the resale prices of its retailers and intervening with lowest-pricing retailers to get their prices increased, Philips' Consumer Lifestyle business in France sought to avoid or slow down online price ‘erosion’ across its entire (online) retail network.

2.4.   Remedies

(15)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (2).

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

(16)

In setting the fines, the Commission took into account the value of sales in 2012, which is the last full business year of the participation of Philips France S.A.S. Consumer Lifestyle business in the infringement.

(17)

The Commission took into account the fact that RPM, by its very nature, restricts competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU and that vertical agreements and concerted practices such as RPM are, by their nature, often less damaging to competition than horizontal agreements. Taking account of these factors and in light of the specific circumstances of the case the proportion of the values of sales was set at 7 %.

(18)

The Commission took into account the duration of the single and continuous infringement, as mentioned above.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

(19)

There are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances in this case.

2.4.3.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

(20)

The calculated fine does not exceed 10 % of Philips' worldwide turnover.

2.4.4.   Reduction of the fine in view of cooperation

(21)

The Commission concludes that, in order to reflect that Philips has effectively cooperated with the Commission beyond its legal obligation to do so, the fine that would otherwise have been imposed should, pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on Fines, be reduced by 40 %.

3.   CONCLUSION

(22)

In light of the above, the final amount of the fine imposed on Philips pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for the single and continuous infringement is EUR 29 828 000.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to start winding-up proceedings in respect of TURUL Kölcsönös Biztosító Egyesület ‘f.a.’

(Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))

(2018/C 340/08)

Insurance undertaking	TURUL Kölcsönös Biztosító Egyesület ‘f.a.’ 6800 Hódmezővásárhely, Mátyás u. 8. szám Hungary
Date, entry into force and nature of decision	24 July 2018 Entry into force: 24 July 2018 Compulsory liquidation order with appointment of liquidator
Competent authorities	Szeged Regional Court 6720 Szeged Széchenyi tér 4. Hungary
Supervisory authority	Central Bank of Hungary 1013 Budapest Krisztina krt. 39 Hungary
Administrator appointed	Pénzügyi Stabilitási és Felszámoló Nonprofit Kft., Dr Balázs Jákli 1055 Budapest, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky út 78. I. emelet Hungary
Applicable law	Hungary Part Four of Act LXXXVIII of 2014 on the Business of Insurance Act XLIX of 1991 on Bankruptcy Proceedings and Liquidation Proceedings

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9060 — HP/Apogee)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 340/09)

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).