Supplement to the Report on Competition Policy 2005

2005

Supplement to theReport onCompetition Policy

Su

pp

lem

en

t to th

e R

ep

ort o

n C

om

pe

tition

Po

licy 2

00

5

European Commission

KD

-AC

-06

-00

1-E

N-C

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg

Report on Competition Policy (available in 20 languages): Free of charge

Supplement (available in EN): EUR 25

Supplement (available in EN): sales price (incl. one copy of the Report on Competition Policy): EUR 25

HHow to obtain EU publications Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.

Supplement to the Report on Competition Policy

2005

European Commission

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may

be billed.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007

ISBN 92-894-4220-4

© European Communities, 2007

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

CONTENTS

APPLICATION OF THE COMPETITION RULES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 7

I – Statistics 7

A – Articles 81, 82 and 86 of the EC Treaty 7

1. Activities in 2005 7

2. Four-year overview 8

B – Merger regulation 9

1. Notifications received 2000-2005 9

2. Article 6 decisions 2002-2005 9

3. Article 8 decisions 2002-2005 9

4. Referrals 2002-2005 10

5. Derogation from suspension 2002-2005 10

C – State aid 11

1. New cases registered in 2005 11

2. Cases decided by the Commission in 2005, by type of decision and sector 11

3. Cases reported by Member States in 2005 under the block exemption regulations, by objective 12

4. Trend in the number of cases decided by the Commission, by type of decision and year 13

5. Cases decided by the Commission in 2005, by Member State and type of decision 14

II – Antitrust: Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty 15

A – Legislative provisions and notices adopted or proposed by the Commission 15

B – Decisions pursuant to Articles 81, 82 and 86 of the EC Treaty 15

1. Final decisions on substance 15

2. Rejections of complaints by decision 15

3. Sector inquiries 16

4. Commitment decisions 16

C – Other documents pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty 16

Published notices pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 16

D – Press releases 17

E – Judgments and orders of the Community courts 18

1. Court of Justice 18

2. Court of First Instance 19

3

III – Merger control: Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 20

A – Decisions 20

1. In phase I 20

2. In phase II 27

B – Press releases 28

C – Judgments/orders of the Community courts 33



IV – State aid control 34

A – Legislative provisions and notices adopted or proposed by the Commission 34

B – List of cases in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries, transport and the coal industry 34

1. Cases in which the Commission found, without opening a formal investigation,

that there was no aid element within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC 34

2. Measures which the Commission considered compatible with the common market

without opening a formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC 35

3. Aid cases in which the Commission initiated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC in

respect of all or part of the measure 46

4. Aid cases in which the Commission extended proceedings under Article 88(2) EC in

respect of all or part of the measure 48

5. Measures in which the Commission found no aid element (Article 88(2) EC) 49

6. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was compatible with the common

market and terminated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC by way of a positive final decision 49

7. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was compatible with the common

market under certain reservations and terminated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC by way

of a conditional final decision 50

8. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was incompatible with the common

market and terminated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC by way of a negative or partly

negative decision 50

9. Aid cases in which the Commission terminated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC after the

Member State withdrew the proposed measure 51

10. Cases in which the Commission noted the Member State’s agreement to ensuring the

compliance of existing aid awards following the proposal of appropriate measures under

Article 88(1) EC 51

11. Decisions to seize the Court under the second indent of Article 88(2) EC 51

12. Other Commission decisions 52

C – List of State aid cases in other sectors 54

1. In the agricultural sector 54

2. In the fisheries sector 71

3. In the transport sector 72

D – Judgments of the Community courts 76



E – Press releases 78

4

Contents

APPLICATION OF THE COMPETITION RULES IN THE MEMBER STATES 83

A – Developments in the Member States 83

1. Changes to national competition legislation 83

2. Enforcement of EC competition rules by national competition authorities 102

B – Application of the EC competition rules by national courts 139

REACTIONS TO THE REPORT ON COMPETITION POLICY 2004 83

A – European Parliament 167

B – European Economic and Social Committee 170

5

Contents

Application of the competition rules in the European Union

I – STATISTICS

A – Articles 81, 82 and 86 of the EC Treaty

1. Activities in 2005

1.1. New Commission cases opened

Type Number %

Complaints 55 52.4%

Ex officio 39 37.1%

Other 11 10.5%

TOTAL 105 100%

Notifications under Article 7 of Dir. 2002/21/EC (1) 201

1.2. Commission cases closed

By formal decision 37 By informal procedure 207

Action under Article 7 of Dir. 2002/21/EC

No comments letter 49

Comments letter 62

Incompleteness decision 0

Veto decision 1

Withdrawal of serious doubts letter 2

TOTAL 114

1.3. Inspections

Number of cases (2) Inspections (3)

TOTAL 9 11

7

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common

regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services.

(2) In two of the indicated cases a second inspection was carried out a few weeks after the first one.

(3) Inspections taking place in the same case at different locations, but at the same time are counted

as one for the purpose of these statistics.

2. Four-year overview

2.1. Evolution of stock of cases

Cases open at the end of the calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Notifications 285 290 32 16

Complaints 327 267 242 176

Ex officio 193 203 193 139

Other – – 11 6

TOTAL 805 760 478 337

2.2. Evolution of input

New cases registered during the year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Notifications 101 71 3 –

Complaints 129 94 85 55

Ex officio 91 97 52 39

Other – – 18 11

TOTAL 321 262 158 105

2.3. Evolution of output

Cases closed during the year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Formal decisions 33 24 28 23

Informal procedures 330 295 363 207

TOTAL 363 319 391 230

8


B – Merger regulation (4)(5)

1. Notifications received 2000-2005

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Cases notified 345 335 277 212 249 313

Notifications withdrawn in phase I 8 8 3 0 3 6

Notifications withdrawn in phase II 6 4 1 0 2 3

Final decisions (6) 345 340 275 231 242 302

Total cases closed by final decision 341 334 264 230 242 299

2. Article 6 decisions 2002-2005

2002 2003 2004 2005

Decisions on concentrations 1 0.4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

outside scope of merger

regulation (Article 6(1)(a))

Phase I clearance without 242 93.1% 203 91% 220 92% 276 92%

commitments (Article 6(1)(b))

Decisions, opening of phase II 7 2.7% 9 4% 8 3% 10 3%

(Article 6(1)(c))

Phase I clearance with 10 3.8% 11 5% 12 5% 15 5%

commitments

TOTAL 260 100% 223 100% 240 100% 301 100%

3. Article 8 decisions 2002-2005

2002 2003 2004 2005

Phase II clearance with 5 56% 6 75% 4 57.1% 3 60%

conditions and obligations

(Article 8(2))

Phase II clearance without 2 22% 2 25% 2 28.6% 2 40%

conditions and obligations

(Article 8(2))

Prohibition decision 0 0% 0 0% 1 14.3% 0 0%

(Article 8(3))

Divestiture orders (Article 8(4)) 2 22% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

TOTAL 9 100% 8 100% 7 100% 5 100%

9

I – Statistics

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 or Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, respectively,

depending on whether decision was taken before or after 1 May 2004.

(5) The differences between these figures and the figures in the report can be explained by adjust-

ments to our methods of calculating statistics.

(6) Explanation: in a few cases two final decisions are taken, a partial referral to a Member State and

a decision concerning the part of the case which was not referred.

4. Referrals 2002-2005

2002 2003 2004 2005

Request for referral by a Member State (Article 9) 10 10 3 7

Decision referring case to a Member State, 13 9 3 6

totally or partially (Article 9)

Request for referral to the Commission (Article 22) 2 1 0 4

Decision referring case to the Commission 3

(Article 22)

Request for referral to a Member State by the parties 14

(Article 4(4))

Decision referring case to a Member State 11

(Article 4(4))

Request for referral to the Commission by the parties 28

(Article 4(5))

Referral to the Commission accepted (Article 4(5)) 24

5. Derogation from suspension 2002-2005

2002 2003 2004 2005

Derogation from suspension (Article 7(4)) 14 8 10 6

10


C – State aid

1. New cases registered in 2005

Agriculture Transport Fisheries Manufacturing, Total

and coal services

and other

Prenotified aid PN 1 – – 80 81

Notified aid N 241 58 19 360 678

Non-notified aid NN 25 12 14 41 92

Existing aid E 2 – – 10 12

Complaints, ex officio CP 21 n/a n/a 204 225

and presumed cases

Total (1) 290 70 33 697 1 069

2. Cases decided by the Commission in 2005, by type of decision and sector

Agriculture Transport Fisheries Manufacturing, Total

and coal services

and other

Total number of cases (2) 270 42 26 408 746

By decision type:

No objection 252 32 19 276 579

No aid – 1 – 22 23

Open formal 11 3 2 36 52

investigation procedure

Total (3) 8 4 2 30 44

Positive 4 3 – 14 21

Negative 3 - 1 18 22

Conditional – 1 – 2 3

No aid – – – 3 3

Withdrawn by 1 – 1 4 6

Member State

Other decisions (4) 1 7 5 69 82

11

I – Statistics

Decisions

to close the

formal

investigation

procedure

3. Cases reported by Member States in 2005 under the block exemption

regulations, by objective

Training SMEs Employment Agriculture Fisheries Total

aid aid (SMEs) (SMEs)

Total 69 198 26 88 22 403

BE – 1 2 – – 3

CZ – 4 1 2 – 7

DK – 1 – – – 1

DE 9 19 3 10 – 41

EE 2 6 – – 1 9

EL 1 4 – 1 1 7

ES 5 18 2 12 2 39

FR 1 2 – 15 – 18

IE 2 1 – – – 3

IT 17 37 1 10 12 77

CY – 3 – – – 3

LV – 3 – 6 – 9

LT 2 3 1 – 1 7

LU – 1 – – – 1

HU – 5 4 1 – 10

MT 2 5 2 – – 9

NL – 11 – 11 – 22

AT 1 5 – – – 6

PL 2 19 6 1 – 28

PT – 1 – – – 1

SI – – – 1 1 2

SK – 2 – – – 2

FI – – – 2 2 4

SE – – 1 – – 1

UK 25 47 3 16 2 93

12


4. Trend in the number of cases decided by the Commission, by type of decision

and year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Total number of cases (2) 776 825 855 1056 887 746

By decision type:

No objection 602 598 662 558 471 579

No aid 25 36 24 18 19 23

Open formal investigation procedure 74 92 77 78 45 52

Total (3) 79 78 92 64 70 44

Positive 19 35 34 27 29 21

Negative 40 36 46 28 43 22

Conditional 4 – 4 9 5 3

No aid 11 6 5 1 1 3

Withdrawn by 10 11 13 7 2 6

Member State

Other decisions (4) 39 62 38 60 274 77

13

I – Statistics

Decisions to close

the formal investigation

procedure

5. Cases decided by the Commission in 2005, by Member State and type of

decision

By decision type

BE 15 10 1 2 2 1 – – – 1 2

CZ 22 14 3 – – – – – – – 5

DK 22 18 3 1 – – – – – – -

DE 85 63 5 6 8 1 5 – – 2 9

EE 8 8 – – – – – – – – -

EL 17 12 – 4 – – – – – – 1

ES 56 48 – 1 1 1 – – – – 7

FR 66 45 1 6 6 3 2 – 1 1 12

IE 10 8 1 9 2 1 1 – – 1 1

IT 192 162 2 – 17 9 9 2 1 1 11

CY 2 2 – – – – – – – – -

LV 8 8 – – – – – – – – -

LT 6 6 – – – – – – – – -

LU 4 3 – – – – – – – – 1

HU 5 3 1 1 – – – – – – 1

MT – – – – – – – – – – -

NL 44 35 3 5 1 – 1 1 – – -

AT 15 15 – – – – – – – – -

PL 62 28 1 9 1 1 1 – 1 – 27

PT 7 5 – – 1 1 – – – – 2

SI 5 2 – 1 2 2 1 – – – 1

SK 15 13 – 2 – – – – – – -

FI 10 9 – – 1 – 1 – – – -

SE 17 17 1 – – – – – – – -

UK 53 45 1 5 2 1 1 – – – 2

Total 746 579 23 52 44 21 21 3 3 6 82

(1) Total number of new cases registered in 2005 (excluding double-counting which occurs when a

case is first registered as a CP or a PN before becoming an N or NN).

(2) Total number of cases on which the Commission took a final decision in 2005. As a case may have

more than one decision, the sum of the decision types does not necessarily equal the total num-

ber of cases.

(3) Final decisions taken after a formal investigation procedure may be partly negative, positive, con-

ditional or 'no aid' decisions. As a result, the sum of such decision types does not necessarily equal

the total number of final decisions, whereby each decision is counted only once.

(4) Other decisions include: corrigenda, linguistic revisions, modifications of previous decisions, revo-

cations of decision, decisions relating to a withdrawal of notification, decisions to extend formal

investigation proceedings as well as interim procedure decisions, referrals to the Court of Justice.

14


Total

number

of

cases (2)

No

objection

No aid Open

formal

investi-

gation

procedure

Decisions to close the formal investigation procedure

Other

decisions

(4)

Total (3) Positive Negative Condi-

tional

No aid With-

drawn

by

Member

State

15

II – ANTITRUST: ARTICLES 81 AND 82 OF THE EC TREATY

A – Legislative provisions and notices adopted or proposed by the Commission

Title Date Publication

Commission Regulation (EC) No 611/2005 20.4.2005 OJ L 101, 21.4.2005

amending the existing block exemption

regulation for liner shipping consortia

Commission notice on the rules for access to the 13.12.2005 OJ C 325, 22.12.2005, p. 7

Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82

of the EC Treaty, Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the

EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC)

No 139/2004

Proposal for a Council regulation repealing 14.12.2005

Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86, laying down detailed

rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the

Treaty to maritime transport, and amending

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation

of the rules on competition

B – Decisions pursuant to Articles 81, 82 and 86 of the EC Treaty

1. Final decisions on substance

Case No Name Date of Publication

COMP/ decision

37.773 MCAA (monochloroacetic acid) 19.1.2005

37.507 Generics/AstraZeneca 15.6.2005

38.337 PO/Thread 14.9.2005

36.623, Peugeot SA 5.10.2005

36.820,

37.275

38.281 Raw tobacco (Italy) 20.10.2005

38.354 Industrial bags 30.11.2005

38.443 Rubber chemicals 21.12.2005

2. Rejections of complaints by decision

Case No Name Date of decision

COMP/

38.190 AEPI S.A./Greece + ERATO + APPOLLON + GRAMMO 18.4.2005

38.469 Airport users/AIA (Athens International Airport) of Spata + Greece 2.5.2005

39.131 H. Haupt + FPÖ/OMV + BP + Shell + Esso + Agip 11.5.2005

38.401 EMC/European Cement Producers 28.9.2005

38.836 Canallsatellite/TPS+TF1+ML 5.10.2005

39.075 Services aéroportuaires 12.10.2005

38.731 SEM/Italie 12.10.2005

35.216 Sellier/Crédit Agricole 15.12.2005

3. Sector inquiries

Name Date

Gas – opening inquiry 13.6.2005

Electricy – opening inquiry 13.6.2005

Retail banking – opening inquiry 13.6.2005

Business insurance – opening inquiry 13.6.2005

4. Commitment decisions

Case No Name Date of decision

COMP/

37214 Deutscher Fußballbund (DFB) 19.1.2005

39116, Coca-Cola 22.6.2005

36257,

37528,

37855,

38055

C – Other documents pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty

Published notices pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation (EC) No1/2004

Case No COMP/ Name Publication

ALROSA – De Beers OJ C 136, 3.6.2005, p. 32

Austrian Airlines/SAS OJ C 233, 22.9.2005, p. 18

16


D – Press releases

IP/05/61 19.1.2005 Commission imposes €216.91 million in fines on MCAA chemicals

cartel

IP/05/62 19.1.2005 German Football League commitments to liberalise joint selling of

Bundesliga media rights made legally binding by Commission

decision

IP/05/195 17.2.2005 Commission secures improvements to gas supply contracts between

OMV and Gazprom

IP/05/267 8.3.2005 Car prices converge in enlarged EU

IP/05/289 14.3.2005 Commission consults on future of IATA passenger tariff conferences

IP/05/343 21.3.2005 Commission requests Sweden to end broadcasting services monopoly

IP/05/361 23.3.2005 Aviation insurers commit to reforms to promote competition and

transparency

IP/05/477 25.4.2005 Commission prolongs and amends block exemption for liner

shipping consortia

IP/05/768 21.6.2005 2004 Annual Report on Competition Policy

IP/05/775 22.6.2005 Commission makes commitments from Coca-Cola legally binding,

increasing consumer choice

IP/05/810 29.6.2005 Commission to make proposal on IATA tariff conferences in autumn

IP/05/926 14.7.2005 Electronic communications: Commission delivers review of 200th

notification by Member States of measures to improve competition

IP/05/1027 1.8.2005 Convergence of car prices improves within EU while remaining con-

stant in the euro zone

IP/05/1032 2.8.2005 Commission publishes report on EU securities trading, clearing and

settlement arrangements

IP/05/1033 3.8.2005 Commission helps to secure improved competitive conditions for line

sharing in Germany

IP/05/1056 17.8.2005 Commission consults on BUMA and SABAM’s commitments for the

licensing of online music

IP/05/1089 5.9.2005 Commission urges Member States to step up efforts to open

professional services to competition

IP/05/1140 14.9.2005 Commission fines producers of industrial thread a total of €43.497

million for cartels

IP/05/1208 30.9.2005 New rules for car distribution bring dealers greater freedom to

compete across the EU

IP/05/1215 5.10.2005 Commission appoints trustee to advise on Microsoft’s compliance

with 2004 decision

IP/05/1227 5.10.2005 Commission imposes a €49.5 million fine on Peugeot for obstructing

new car exports from the Netherlands

IP/05/1315 20.10.2005 Commission fines companies €56 million for cartel in Italian raw

tobacco market

IP/05/1408 10.11.2005 Commission publishes study on impact of repealing exemption for

liner shipping conferences

IP/05/1421 15.11.2005 Energy: Member States must do more to open markets; competition

inquiry identifies serious malfunctions

17

II – Antitrust: Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty

IP/05/1432 16.11.2005 Commission proposes to revise block exemption for IATA passenger

tariff conferences

IP/05/1441 17.11.2005 Commission receives improved commitments from FAPL over sale

of media rights

IP/05/1508 30.11.2005 Commission fines 16 firms €290 million for industrial bags cartel

IP/05/1565 12.12.2005 Commission welcomes changes in ETSI IPR rules to prevent

‘patent ambush’

IP/05/1581 13.12.2005 Commission improves rules for access to the file in merger and

antitrust procedures

IP/05/1586 14.12.2005 Commission proposes repeal of exemption for liner shipping

conferences

IP/05/1626 19.12.2005 Commission publishes discussion paper on abuse of dominance

IP/05/1634 20.12.2005 Commission launches consultations on facilitating damages claims

for breaches of EU competition law

IP/05/1656 21.12.2005 Commission fines four firms €75.86 million for rubber chemical cartel

IP/05/1695 22.12.2005 Commission warns Microsoft of daily penalty for failure to comply

with 2004 decision

E – Judgments and orders of the Community courts

1. Court of Justice

EC

Case Parties Date Publication

C-262/04_1 Commission v Germany 10.1.2005

C-250/03_1 Mauri 17.2.2005 OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

C-141/02 P Commission v max.mobil 22.2.2005 OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

Telekommunikation Service

C-403/04 P_1, Sumitomo Metal Industries v 15.3.2005

C-405/04 P_1 Commission

C-299/04 Commission v Greece 14.4.2005 OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

C-53/03 Syfait and Others 31.5.2005 OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

C-349/04 Commission v Luxembourg 16.6.2005 OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

C-189/02 P, Dansk Rørindustri v Commission 28.6.2005 OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

C-202/02 P,

C-205/02 P,

C-206/02 P,

C-207/02 P,

C-208/02 P,

C-213/02 P

C-112/04 P_1 Marlines v Commission 15.9.2005 OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

C-334/03 Commission v Portugal 20.10.2005 OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

C-121/04 P_1 Minoan Lines v Commission 17.11.2005 OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

18


19

II – Antitrust: Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty

2. Court of First Instance

EC


T-193/02 Piau v Commission 26.1.2005

T-201/04_3 Microsoft v Commission 9.3.2005

T-184/01_1 IMS Health v Commission 10.3.2005 OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

T-184/01_3 IMS Health v Commission 10.3.2005 OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission 21.4.2005 OJ C 155, 25.6.2005



T-86/03_1 Holcim (France) v Commission 4.5.2005

T-443/03_1 Retecal and Others v Commission 25.5.2005 OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

T-71/03, Tokai Carbon v Commission 15.6.2005 OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

T-74/03,

T-87/03,

T-91/03

T-241/01 Scandinavian Airlines System 18.7.2005 OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

v Commission

T-49/02, Brasserie nationale v Commission 27.7.2005 OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

T-50/02,

T-51/02

T-325/01 DaimlerChrysler v Commission 15.9.2005 OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

T-22/02, Sumitomo Chemical v Commission 6.10.2005 OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

T-23/02

T-28/02_1 First Data and Others v Commission 17.10.2005 OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

T-38/02 Groupe Danone v Commission 25.10.2005 OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

T-104/04_1 Degussa Initiators v Commission 22.11.2005


T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals 29.11.2005 OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

v Commission

T-52/02 SNCZ v Commission 29.11.2005 OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

T-62/02 Union Pigments v Commission 29.11.2005

T-64/02 Heubach v Commission 29.11.2005 OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

T-48/02 Brouwerij Haacht v Commission 6.12.2005 OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

T-135/02 Greencore Group v Commission 14.12.2005 OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

ECSC


C-57/02 P Acerinox v Commission 14.7.2005 OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

T-148/98_1 Evans and Others v Commission 28.9.2005

T-148/98_2 Evans and Others v Commission 28.9.2005

C-65/02 P ThyssenKrupp Stainless (formerly

C-73/02 P Krupp Thyssen Stainless) v Commission 14.7.2005 OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

III – MERGER CONTROL: COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004

A – Decisions

1. In phase 1 (7)

1.1. Decisions without commitments

Case Parties Date of decision

M.3511 WIENER BÖRSE ET AL. / BUDAPEST STOCK EXCHANGE / 22.3.2005

BUDAPEST COMMODITY EXCHANGE / KELER / JV

M.3519 ELECTRA / THYSSENKRUPP FAHRZEUGGUSS 28.1.2005

M.3543 PKN ORLEN / UNIPETROL 20.4.2005

M.3556 FORTIS / BCP 19.1.2005

M.3578 BP / NOVA CHEMICALS / JV 1.7.2005

M.3579 WPP / GREY 24.1.2005

M.3584 HUTCHISON WHAMPOA / NORTH DN 10.3.2005

M.3595 SONY / MGM 30.3.2005

M.3609 CINVEN / FRANCE TELECOM CABLE – NC NUMERICABLE 4.3.2005

M.3622 VALEO / ENGEL 9.2.2005

M.3628 GILDE / BEKAERT FENCING 16.2.2005

M.3631 APAX / ACP / EVE JV 13.1.2005

M.3636 PETRONAS / SASOL / UHAMBO JV 14.2.2005

M.3638 KKR / DSD 7.1.2005

M.3641 BT / INFONET 25.1.2005

M.3643 SEPHORA / EL CORTE INGLES / JV 9.3.2005

M.3647 WESTLB / DAL 27.1.2005

M.3648 GRUNER + JAHR / MPS 8.4.2005

M.3649 FINMECCANICA / BAES AVIONICS & COMMUNICATIONS 14.3.2005

M.3656 ACHMEA / ATHLON / PARTSPLAN JV 23.2.2005

M.3657 AIRBUS / SITA 27.1.2005

M.3659 DRESDNER BANK / CETELEM / JV 7.1.2005

M.3662 XSTRATA / WMC RESOURCES 24.1.2005

M.3663 RBI / HAWKER PACIFIC / JV 14.1.2005

M.3664 REPSOL BUTANO / SHELL GASS (LPG) 2.3.2005

M.3665 ENEL / SLOVENSKE ELEKTRARNE 26.4.2005

M.3666 NORDIC CAPITAL / PLASTAL HOLDING 2.2.2005

M.3668 DIFA / INVESTKREDIT / JV 3.2.2005

M.3670 EQT GROUP / CARL ZEISS / SOLA 3.3.2005

M.3671 DE RAEKT / ING 21.1.2005

20

(7) Article 6(1)(b) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and Council Regulation (EC)

No 139/2004, respectively, depending on whether the decision was taken before or after

1 May 2004.

M.3675 CITIGROUP / BALTISCHES HAUS / UAB PALINK / JV 11.2.2005

M.3676 WARBURG / PROVIDENCE / TELCORDIA 25.1.2005

M.3677 DANSKE BANK / NATIONAL EUROPE HOLDINGS / 14.2.2005

NORTHERN BANK INSURANCE SERVICES

M.3678 GOLDMAN SACHS / CERBERUS / TET 23.3.2005

M.3682 INTEK / GIM 16.2.2005

M.3688 UTC / KIDDE 18.3.2005

M.3689 BT / ALBACOM 31.1.2005

M.3690 CNP / CAPITALIA / FINECO VITA 14.2.2005

M.3693 TPV / PHILIPS (MONITORS) 5.8.2005

M.3694 HOCHTIEF / ABB / JV 24.2.2005

M.3695 BT / RADIANZ 22.4.2005

M.3697 SYMANTEC / VERITAS 15.3.2005

M.3698 3M / MAGNA / I & T / JV 28.2.2005

M.3699 EQT / SMURFIT MUNKSJÖ 16.2.2005

M.3700 EDP / LOGICACMG / EDINFOR 1.4.2005

M.3702 CVC / CSM 18.2.2005

M.3703 RABOBANK / IHC 14.2.2005

M.3704 CVC / MIVISA 9.3.2005

M.3705 KKR / MASONITE 17.2.2005

M.3706 ÖVAG / INVESTKREDIT 15.4.2005

M.3707 AXA / CAMAIEU 10.2.2005

M.3708 APOLLO / DIRECTV / HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS 23.3.2005

M.3709 ORKLA / ELKEM 4.3.2005

M.3712 LGB / KLÖCKNER 28.2.2005

M.3713 HOLCIM / AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES 14.3.2005

M.3714 BRIDGEPOINT / ATTENDO 8.3.2005

M.3716 AS WATSON / MARIONNAUD 7.4.2005

M.3717 BC PARTNERS / CINVEN / AMADEUS 16.3.2005

M.3718 IFIL / INTESA / MARCEGAGLIA / SVILUPPO ITALIA / SIT 21.3.2005

M.3720 BAES / AMS 14.3.2005

M.3721 STORA ENSO / SCALDIA / PDF 7.4.2005

M.3722 NUTRECO / STOLT-NIELSEN / MARINE HARVEST JV 12.4.2005

M.3723 EQT / ISS / HEALTHCARE / CAREPARTNER / JV 3.3.2005

M.3725 CARGILL / PAGNAN 22.3.2005

M.3726 DANSK SUPERMARKED / NETTO 25.4.2005

M.3727 3i / BERKENHOFF 23.3.2005

M.3728 AUTOGRILL / ALTADIS / ALDEASA 23.3.2005

M.3729 EDF / AEM / EDISON 12.8.2005

M.3730 LUKOIL / TEBOIL / SUOMEN PETROOLI 17.3.2005

M.3733 DOW / DDE 26.4.2005

M.3735 FINMECCANICA / AMS 14.3.2005

21

III – Merger control: Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004

M.3736 EQT / GSCP / ISS / JV 3.5.2005

M.3738 KODAK / KPG 21.3.2005

M.3740 BARCLAYS BANK / FÖRENINGSSPARBANKEN / JV 2.6.2005

M.3742 CORMAN / GLANBIA CONSUMER FOODS / JV 4.10.2005

M.3743 DUPONT / DDE 12.4.2005

M.3744 ALCOA / AFL 23.3.2005

M.3745 SEVERSTAL / LUCCHINI 11.4.2005

M.3746 TETRA LAVAL / SIG 25.7.2005

M.3747 RAUTARUUKKI / WÄRTSILÄ / SKF / JV 3.5.2005

M.3748 MTFG / UFJ 21.4.2005

M.3750 EQT / SANITEC 1.4.2005

M.3752 VERIZON / MCI 7.10.2005

M.3753 KODAK / CREO 3.5.2005

M.3754 STRABAG / DYWIDAG 23.6.2005

M.3755 NORDIC CAPITAL / NYCOMED 19.4.2005

M.3757 3i / PROVIDENCE /CROWN ENTERTAINMENT 15.4.2005

M.3759 SABANCI / DUSA 25.4.2005

M.3760 AXA PRIVATE EQUITY / LARIVIERE 11.4.2005

M.3762 APAX / TRAVELEX 16.6.2005

M.3763 CARLSBERG / DLG / SEJET JV 7.7.2005

M.3764 BELGACOM / SWISSCOM / JV 19.5.2005

M.3766 NORDIC CAPITAL / LEAF INT 21.4.2005

M.3767 BHP / WMC 26.4.2005

M.3768 BBVA / BNL 27.4.2005

M.3769 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY / 15.4.2005

COCA-COLA HELLENIC BOTTLING COMPANY / MULTON

M.3772 AVIVA / RAC 3.5.2005

M.3773 LEHMAN BROTHERS/ EUROPE REALTY / IHG PORTFOLIO 10.5.2005

M.3774 PIRELLI / DB REAL ESTATE / INVESTITORI ASSOCIATI / 27.4.2005

LA RINASCENTE-UPIM

M.3775 GLUMA HOLDING / GLUD & MARSTRAND 9.6.2005

M.3776 VODAFONE / OSKAR MOBILE 25.5.2005

M.3777 STORA ENSO / CORENSO 24.5.2005

M.3778 BÖHLER-UDDEHOLM / BUDERUS 30.6.2005

M.3780 ABN AMRO/BANCA ANTONVENETA 27.4.2005

M.3781 CREDIT AGRICOLE / CAISSE D'EPARGNE / JV 14.6.2005

M.3783 TPG / BRITISH VITA 6.6.2005

M.3784 TRIDONICATCO / TOYODA GOSEI / LED JV 19.10.2005

M.3785 TPG / APAX / TIM HELLAS 26.5.2005

M.3788 NORDIC CAPITAL / OUTUKUMPU COPPER PRODUCTS 30.5.2005

M.3789 JOHNSON CONTROLS / ROBERT BOSCH / DELPHI SLI 29.6.2005

M.3791 PAI / COIN 12.5.2005

22


M.3793 BARCLAYS / IVECO / JV 31.5.2005

M.3794 PAI / FTE 19.5.2005

M.3797 CGE/AMGA/SMAT/SAP 15.6.2005

M.3798 NYK / LAURITZEN COOL / LAUCOOL JV 19.8.2005

M.3799 DEXIA / KOMMUNALKREDIT / JV 4.8.2005

M.3800 BC PARTNERS / DOMETIC 1.6.2005

M.3801 CVC / GILDE / BEKAERT FENCING 31.5.2005

M.3803 EADS / NOKIA 28.7.2005

M.3804 CONTINENTAL / XTRA PRINT 4.7.2005

M.3805 CROMPTON / GREAT LAKES 15.6.2005

M.3806 TELEFÓNICA / ČESKY TELECOM 10.6.2005

M.3807 SIEMENS / HYUNDAI / JV 13.6.2005

M.3809 SIEMENS / FLENDER 29.6.2005

M.3810 INVESTCORP / POLYCONCEPT 30.5.2005

M.3812 GOLDMAN SACHS / EURAMAX 6.6.2005

M.3813 FORTUNE BRANDS / ALLIED DOMECQ 10.6.2005

M.3814 RR DONNELLEY / ASTRON 15.6.2005

M.3815 3i GROUP / CAREMA 16.6.2005

M.3816 APAX / MÖLNLYCKE 15.6.2005

M.3818 GILDE BUY-OUT / DSM BAKERY INGREDIENTS 13.6.2005

M.3819 DAIMLERCHRYSLER / MAV 3.6.2005

M.3820 AVNET / MEMEC 24.6.2005

M.3821 RHEINMETALL / DIEHL / AIM 19.8.2005

M.3822 STORA ENSO / SCHNEIDERSÖHNE PAPIER 25.7.2005

M.3824 EQT IV / BRANDTEX 14.6.2005

M.3825 EHA / REWE AUSTRIA / JV 27.6.2005

M.3826 TRIMOTEUR / NIBCAPITAL / FORTIS / SANDD 21.6.2005

M.3830 GOLDMAN SACHS / TREOFAN 29.7.2005

M.3831 ORANJE-NASSAU GROUP / SHV HOLDING / 27.6.2005

EDINBURGH OIL & GAS

M.3832 MATLINPATTERSON L.P. / MATUSSIÈRE & FOREST 4.7.2005

M.3833 3i SGR / GIOCHI PREZIOSI 6.7.2005

M.3836 GOLDMAN SACHS / PIRELLI CAVI E SISTEMI ENERGIA / 5.7.2005

PIRELLI CAVI E SISTEMI TELECOM

M.3837 THIEL LOGISTIK / MONDI / PROXAR 16.6.2005

M.3838 AVID / PINNACLE 4.8.2005

M.3839 ACCESS INDUSTRIES / BASELL 4.7.2005

M.3840 CVC / CORTEFIEL 30.6.2005

M.3841 VALORIZA GESTION / AGUAS DE LAS PALMAS 22.7.2005

M.3843 MACQUAIRIE / CDPQ / YELLOW BRICK ROAD 1.7.2005

M.3844 IBM / GLOBAL VALUE 28.6.2005

M.3845 PAI / CHR. HANSEN 18.7.2005

23


M.3849 IPR / MITSUI / CALPINE UK 7.7.2005

M.3850 G+J / STYRIA MEDIEN / JV 29.7.2005

M.3852 HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY / HYUNDAI CAR UK LTD 6.7.2005

M.3853 SOLVAY / FOURNIER 18.7.2005

M.3854 IPIC / OMV / JV 1.8.2005

M.3855 WEBASTO / STARCK / STAXERA 1.9.2005

M.3856 BOEING / LOCKHEED MARTIN / UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE JV 9.8.2005

M.3857 SITA / FLUGHAFEN DÜSSELDORF / FDITG 29.7.2005

M.3858 LEHMAN BROTHERS / SCG / STARWOOD / LE MERIDIEN 20.7.2005

M.3862 BILFINGER BERGER / WIB / JVC 26.7.2005

M.3864 FIMAG / ZÜBLIN 14.10.2005

M.3865 TRINECKE / VVT 21.9.2005

M.3866 SUN / STORAGETEK 26.8.2005

M.3867 VATTENFALL / ELSAM AND E2 ASSETS 22.12.2005

M.3870 CARLYLE / OTOR 9.8.2005

M.3871 RBC / DEXIA / JV 7.12.2005

M.3872 UNITED SERVICES GROUP / SOLVUS 2.8.2005

M.3873 DAIG / VITERRA 3.8.2005

M.3874 CVC / RUHRGAS INDUSTRIES 1.9.2005

M.3875 PAI PARTNERS SAS / KWIK-FIT 16.8.2005

M.3876 DIESTER INDUSTRIE / BUNGE / JV 30.9.2005

M.3881 PHOENIX / A&C ADIVAR-COMIFAR 9.8.2005

M.3883 GDF / CENTRICA / SPE 7.9.2005

M.3884 ADM POLAND / CEFETRA / BTZ 14.10.2005

M.3885 APAX / BARCLAYS / TCHENGUIZ / SOMERFIELD / JV 18.11.2005

M.3886 ASTER 2 / FLINT INK 25.8.2005

M.3887 CLERICAL MEDICAL / MLP-LIFE INSURANCE 5.9.2005

M.3892 BAYERISCHE LANDESBANK / SPEED 6.10.2005

M.3894 UNICREDITO / HVB 18.10.2005

M.3895 PHL / PEL 16.8.2005

M.3897 WESTLB / NORDLB / SHINSEI / FLOWERS / JV 5.9.2005

M.3899 DANAHER / LEICA MS 22.8.2005

M.3900 CVC / WAVIN 30.8.2005

M.3902 HEIDELBERGCEMENT / DE HOOP TERNEUZEN / 19.9.2005

MERMANS BETON / JV

M.3905 TESCO / CARREFOUR (Czech Republic and Slovakia) 22.12.2005

M.3906 3i GROUP / PIHL 30.8.2005

M.3907 BERTELSMANN / CHANNEL 5 26.8.2005

M.3908 ABN AMRO / IMCD 31.8.2005

M.3910 ROCKWOOD / SÜD-CHEMIE 13.12.2005

M.3911 BENQ / SIEMENS MOBILE 7.9.2005

M.3912 BIDVEST / DELI XL 31.8.2005

24


M.3913 3i / AVIAPARTNER 2.9.2005

M.3914 TELE2 / VERSATEL 7.9.2005

M.3915 APAX / VERSATEL 6.9.2005

M.3917 GOLDMAN SACHS ET AL. / CMP FONDS 15.9.2005

M.3918 DOUGHTY HANSON / MOELLER 5.9.2005

M.3920 FRANCE TÉLÉCOM / AMENA 24.10.2005

M.3921 ADVENT / HERLITZ 19.9.2005

M.3924 APAX / PANRICO 19.9.2005

M.3925 UPS / LYNX 23.9.2005

M.3926 SPOHN CEMENT / HEIDELBERGCEMENT 6.9.2005

M.3927 INDUSTRI KAPITAL / BONNA SABLA 20.9.2005

M.3928 TEVA / IVAX 24.11.2005

M.3929 BARCLAYS PRIVATE EQUITY / NEUMAYER 5.9.2005

M.3930 LBO / WHEELABRATOR ALLEVARD 29.9.2005

M.3931 TRANSGOURMET / PRODIREST 28.9.2005

M.3932 THYSSENKRUPP / HELLENIC SHIPYARDS 10.11.2005

M.3933 DEUTSCHE BANK / HARDT / TRAFALGAR / KUNERT 17.10.2005

M.3937 CVC / MINIT GROUP 3.10.2005

M.3938 CRH / QUESTER 15.9.2005

M.3939 ELECTRA / CVC / CPI 27.9.2005

M.3941 ADVENT / CCS 26.9.2005

M.3943 SAINT-GOBAIN / BPB 9.11.2005

M.3944 BEHR / HELLA / JV 24.11.2005

M.3945 LBO / TERREAL 28.9.2005

M.3947 SVITZER / WILHELMSEN OFFSHORE / JV 28.10.2005

M.3949 SHELL / ERG / IONIO GAS / JV 24.11.2005

M.3950 A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK / KERR-MCGEE (NORTH SEA BUSINESS) 28.9.2005

M.3951 NOMURA / KAMPS FOOD RETAIL INVESTMENTS / NORDSEE 28.9.2005

M.3952 SYSTEM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT – METINVEST / 19.9.2005

LEMAN COMMODITIES

M.3957 PAI / CROWN HOLDINGS GPC 27.9.2005

M.3959 GOLDMAN SACHS / IHR PLATZ 9.11.2005

M.3960 BARCLAYS PRIVATE EQUITY / ALSTOM POWER CONVERSION 26.9.2005

M.3961 PERMIRA-KKR / SBS BROADCASTING 7.10.2005

M.3962 ML GLOBAL PRIVATE EQUITY / BACP EUROPE / 27.9.2005

N&W GLOBAL VENDING SPA

M.3963 PHILIPS / LUMILEDS 24.11.2005

M.3964 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY / MEHC 20.10.2005

M.3966 PIRELLI RE / BANCA INTESA / IFIL / MARCEGAGLIA / SI / IT 28.10.2005

M.3968 SOVION / SÜDFLEISCH 21.12.2005

M.3969 SOCIETE GENERALE / FORD LEASE-BUSINESS PARTNER 22.11.2005

M.3971 DEUTSCHE POST / EXEL 24.11.2005

25


M.3972 TRW AUTOMOTIVE / DALPHI METAL ESPAÑA 12.10.2005

M.3973 CMA CGM / DELMAS 1.12.2005

M.3974 JOHNSON CONTROLS / YORK 10.11.2005

M.3976 MOBILKOM AUSTRIA / ONE / PAYBOX 21.11.2005

M.3978 ORACLE / SIEBEL 22.12.2005

M.3980 CANON / CANON ESPAÑA 18.11.2005

M.3981 FIVES-LILLE / LANDIS 8.12.2005

M.3982 TECHNIP / SUBSEA 7 / ASIA PACIFIC JV 19.12.2005

M.3983 POLESTAR / PRISA / IBERSUIZAS / IBERIAN CAPITAL / DEDALO 30.11.2005

M.3984 BAIN FUND GROUP / FCI 25.10.2005

M.3987 FIDIS RENTING / LEASYS 24.11.2005

M.3988 BC FUNDS / FITNESS FIRST 27.10.2005

M.3995 BELGACOM / TELINDUS 1.12.2005

M.3996 INDUSTRI KAPITAL / KWINTET 16.12.2005

M.3997 SUN CAPITAL / SARA LEE 5.12.2005

M.3999 GAZPROM / SIBNEFT 18.11.2005

M.4002 OMV / ARAL CR 21.12.2005

M.4003 ERICSSON / MARCONI 20.12.2005

M.4005 INEOS / INNOVENE 9.12.2005

M.4006 CREDIT AGRICOLE / BANCA INTESA / 14.12.2005

NEXTRA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

M.4008 LOGISTA / EDITORIAL PLANETA / JV 16.12.2005

M.4010 FRESENIUS / HELIOS 8.12.2005

M.4016 MACQUARIE AIRPORTS COPENHAGEN / COPENHAGEN AIRPORTS 5.12.2005

M.4018 ED & F MAN / SAFIC ALCAN (Natural Products) 19.12.2005

M.4019 FRAPORT / DEUTSCHE BANK / BUDAPEST AIRPORT 21.12.2005

M.4021 CRH / BAUBEDARF LEHMANN / 1.12.2005

DIETER NIEDERSTE-HOLLENBERG / BAUKING

M.4022 BELGIAN STATE / CVC / POST DANMARK / DE POST-LA POSTE 19.12.2005

M.4023 INDUSTRI KAPITAL / GUS HOLLAND HOLDING 7.12.2005

M.4024 CINVEN / FRANS BONHOMME 5.12.2005

M.4029 KUEHNE + NAGEL / ACR LOGISTICS 21.12.2005

M.4031 JCI / SAFT /JV 19.12.2005

M.4032 VSE / CEGEDEL / JV 20.12.2005

M.4034 TELENOR / VODAFONE SVERIGE 22.12.2005

M.4037 GERDAU / GRUPO SANTANDER / BOGEY / SIDENOR 16.12.2005

M.4038 PAI / SSK (SPECIALTY CHEMICALS) 15.12.2005

M.4039 ARROW / DNS 14.12.2005

M.4040 KKR / FL SELENIA 19.12.2005

M.4041 BASELL / SOCIÉTÉ DU CRAQUEUR DE L'AUBETTE 22.12.2005

M.4042 TOEPFER / INVIVO / SOULÈS 22.12.2005

M.4043 PLASTAL / DYNAMIT NOBEL KUNSTSTOFF 22.12.2005

26


M.4045 DEUTSCHE BAHN / BAX GLOBAL 22.12.2005

M.4054 KOCH INDUSTRIES / GEORGIA-PACIFIC 19.12.2005

M.4056 HOCHTIEF AIRPORT / CDPQ / BUDAPEST AIRPORT 21.12.2005

M.4058 LOGISTA / PLANETA DE AGOSTINI / JV 16.12.2005

1.2. Decisions with commitments


of decision

M.3593 APOLLO / BAKELITE 11.4.2005

M.3658 ORKLA / CHIPS 3.3.2005

M.3680 ALCATEL / FINMECCANICA / 28.4.2005

ALCATEL ALENIA SPACE & TELESPAZIO

M.3686 HONEYWELL / NOVAR 30.3.2005

M.3692 REUTERS / TELERATE 23.5.2005

M.3732 PROCTER & GAMBLE / GILLETTE 15.7.2005

M.3751 NOVARTIS / HEXAL 27.5.2005

M.3765 AMER / SALOMON 12.10.2005

M.3770 LUFTHANSA / SWISS 4.7.2005

M.3779 PERNOD RICARD / ALLIED DOMECQ 24.6.2005

M.3817 WEGENER / PCM / JV 7.7.2005

M.3829 MAERSK / PONL 29.7.2005

M.3863 TUI / CP SHIPS 12.10.2005

M.3935 JEFFERSON SMURFIT / KAPPA 10.11.2005

M.3940 LUFTHANSA / EUROWINGS 22.12.2005

2. In phase II (8)

2.1. Decisions without commitments


of decision

M.3178 BERTELSMANN / SPRINGER / JV 3.5.2005 OJ L 61, 2.3.2006

M.3625 BLACKSTONE / ACETEX 13.7.2005 OJ L 312, 29.11.2005

27


(8) Article 8(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and Council Regulation (EC)

No 139/2004, respectively, depending on whether the decision was taken before or after

1 May 2004.

2.2. Decisions with commitments


of decision

M.3653 SIEMENS / VA TECH 13.7.2005 On website only –

OJ pending

M.3687 JOHNSON & JOHNSON / GUIDANT 25.8.2005 On website only –

OJ pending

M.3696 E.ON / MOL 21.12.2005 On website only –

OJ pending

B – Press releases

IP/05/65 19.1.2005 Commission approves sale by Banco Comercial Português of a

stake in its life insurance business to Fortis

IP/05/86 24.1.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Grey by WPP

IP/05/88 25.1.2005 Commission clears BT’s acquisition of Infonet

IP/05/128 2.2.2005 Commission refers Blackstone acquisition of NHP in the UK care

homes market to the UK competition authority

IP/05/175 14.2.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into Siemens’ takeover of

VA Tech group

IP/05/177 15.2.2005 Commission refers merger of two German cable network operators

to Bundeskartellamt

IP/05/194 17.2.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Smurfit Munksjö by EQT

IP/05/249 3.3.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Shell Gas by Repsol Butano

IP/05/253 3.3.2005 Commission clears the acquisition of lens producer Sola by

Carl Zeiss and EQT

IP/05/254 4.3.2005 Commission approves planned acquisition of Chips by Orkla,

subject to conditions

IP/05/262 4.3.2005 Commission clears acquisition of France Télécom Câble and

NC Numéricâble by Cinven

IP/05/275 10.3.2005 Commission clears Sephora and El Corte Inglés cosmetic shops joint

venture

IP/05/280 11.3.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into Blackstone’s takeover

of Acetex

IP/05/293 14.3.2005 Commission clears the acquisition of Aggregate Industries by Holcim

IP/05/294 15.3.2005 Commission approves the EuroSystems transaction between

BAE Systems and Finmeccanica in the defence sector

IP/05/295 15.3.2005 Microsoft and Time Warner abandon acquisition of control in

ContentGuard as Thomson purchases a one third stake

IP/05/300 16.3.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Veritas by Symantec

IP/05/329 18.3.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Teboil and Suomen Petrooli

by Lukoil

IP/05/341 18.3.2005 Commission approves UTC/Kidde merger in the fire protection sector

IP/05/357 22.3.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Hungarian Exchanges and

Central Clearinghouse and Depository

28


IP/05/360 23.3.2005 Commission clears acquisition of part of Pagnan by Cargill

IP/05/364 29.3.2005 Commission approves joint acquisition of Aldeasa by Autrogrill and

Altadis

IP/05/369 31.3.2005 Commission approves acquisition of MGM by Sony, Comcast and

group of investors

IP/05/370 31.3.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Novar by Honeywell subject to

conditions

IP/05/404 8.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Scaldia and Papeteries de France

by Stora Enso

IP/05/405 8.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Marionnaud Parfumeries by

AS Watson

IP/05/407 11.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Motorpresse by Gruner+Jahr

IP/05/415 12.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of the German chemical

company Bakelite AG by the Apollo group, subject to conditions

IP/05/425 13.4.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into the joint venture

between Sasol and Total in petroleum-based waxes

IP/05/426 13.4.2005 Commission approves creation of fish farming joint venture between

Nutreco and Stolt-Nielsen

IP/05/464 20.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Unipetrol by PKN Orlen

IP/05/471 22.4.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into Johnson & Johnson’s

takeover of Guidant Corporation

IP/05/474 25.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Radianz by BT

IP/05/478 25.4.2005 Sasol and Total abort proposed petroleum-based wax joint venture

and withdraw notification

IP/05/485 26.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Slovenske Elektrarne by Enel

IP/05/486 26.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition of WMC Resources by BHP Billiton

IP/05/487 26.4.2005 Commission approves acquisition by The Dow Chemical Company of

parts of Dupont Dow Elastomers

IP/05/498 28.4.2005 Commission approves BBVA takeover of BNL and ABN Amro takeover

of Banca Antonveneta

IP/05/507 29.4.2005 Commission clears creation of two joint ventures between Alcatel

Space and Alenia Spazio, subject to conditions

IP/05/532 3.5.2005 Commission clears rotogravure printing joint venture between

Bertelsmann and Springer following in-depth investigation

IP/05/539 4.5.2005 Commission approves acquisition of RAC by Aviva

IP/05/540 4.5.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Creo by Kodak

IP/05/541 4.5.2005 Commission approves joint venture between Rautaruukki,

Wärtsilä and SKF

IP/05/582 20.5.2005 Commission approves joint venture between Belgacom and Swisscom

IP/05/596 24.5.2005 Commission conditionally clears Reuters’ acquisition of competitor

Telerate

IP/05/607 25.5.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Clearwave by Vodafone

IP/05/626 27.5.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Hexal by Novartis,


IP/05/657 2.6.2005 Commission approves joint venture between Barclays and FSB

29


IP/05/669 6.6.2005 Commission clears car distribution joint venture between

DaimlerChrysler and MAV

IP/05/677 7.6.2005 Commission approves acquisition of British Vita by TPG IV

IP/05/713 10.6.2005 Commission clears acquisition of _esk_ Telecom by Telefónica

IP/05/714 10.6.2005 Commission approves acquisition of some Allied Domecq brands and

assets by Fortune Brands

IP/05/734 15.6.2005 Commission gives green light to joint venture between Caisses

d’Epargne Group and Crédit Agricole Group

IP/05/743 16.6.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Mölnlycke by Apax Partners

IP/05/750 17.6.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Travelex by Apax

IP/05/788 24.6.2005 Commission approves Strabag takeover of Walter Bau;

refers Hamburg asphalt market review to Federal Cartel Office

IP/05/792 24.6.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Allied Domecq by Pernod Ricard,


IP/05/794 24.6.2005 Commission clears Avnet’s acquisition of Memec in the distribution of

electronic components industry

IP/05/814 30.6.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Flender by Siemens

IP/05/815 30.6.2005 Commission approves acquisition of car battery producer Delphi SLI

by Johnson Controls and Bosch

IP/05/824 30.6.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Edelstahlwerke Buderus by Böhler-

Uddeholm

IP/05/830 1.7.2005 Commission approves joint venture between BP and Nova Chemicals

IP/05/837 5.7.2005 Commission clears planned acquisition of Swiss by Lufthansa, subject

to conditions

IP/05/840 5.7.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Xtra Print by Continental

IP/05/851 6.7.2005 Commission clears Goldman Sachs’ acquisition of Pirelli’s energy and

telecoms cable businesses

IP/05/871 7.7.2005 Commission clears PCM and Wegener newspaper joint venture,


IP/05/881 8.7.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into E.ON’s acquisition of

Hungary’s MOL gas business

IP/05/919 13.7.2005 Commission approves takeover of VA Tech by Siemens, subject to

conditions

IP/05/922 13.7.2005 Commission clears Blackstone’s takeover of Acetex

IP/05/955 15.7.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Gillette by Procter & Gamble


IP/05/966 19.7.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Fournier by Solvay

IP/05/967 19.7.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Chr. Hansen by PAI

IP/05/996 20.7.2005 Commission approves joint acquisition of 23 Le Meridien hotels by

Lehman Brothers, SCG and Starwood

IP/05/1006 26.7.2005 Commission clears Tetra Laval’s acquisition of SIG Simonazzi

IP/05/1019 29.7.2005 The Commission has approved the acquisition of Nokia’s Professional

Mobile Radio business by European Aeronautic Defence and Space

company

IP/05/1026 29.7.2005 Commission clears the planned acquisition of Royal P&O Nedlloyd by

AP Møller, subject to conditions

30


IP/05/1038 4.8.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Solvus by United Services Group

IP/05/1039 5.8.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Pinnacle by Avid

IP/05/1045 8.8.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Philips Monitors’ business by TPV

IP/05/1048 9.8.2005 Commission refers Macquarie and Ferrovial acquisition of

Exeter Airport to the UK competition authority

IP/05/1049 9.8.2005 Commission clears the creation of United Launch Alliance, a space

launch services joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing

IP/05/1055 12.8.2005 Commission approves the acquisition of Edison by EDF and AEM

IP/05/1058 19.8.2005 Commission clears Rheinmetall’s acquisition of 50% shareholding in

AIM in the infrared components industry

IP/05/1059 22.8.2005 Commission approves joint venture between NYK Reefers and

Lauritzen

IP/05/1065 25.8.2005 Commission approves takeover of Guidant Corporation by

Johnson & Johnson, subject to conditions

IP/05/1067 25.8.2005 Commission approves acquisition of ink manufacturer Flint by Xsys

IP/05/1070 26.8.2005 Commission approves acquisition of StorageTek by Sun Microsystems

IP/05/1094 6.9.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Ruhrgas Industries by

CVC Capital Partners S.a.r.l.

IP/05/1107 8.9.2005 Commission clears BenQ’s acquisition of Siemens mobile device

business

IP/05/1108 8.9.2005 Commission clears the acquisition of Dutch and Belgian parts of

Versatel by Tele2

IP/05/1109 8.9.2005 Commission approves acquisition of joint control by Gaz de France

and Centrica of SPE, ALG Negoce SA and Luminus

IP/05/1163 20.9.2005 Commission clears creation of ready-mixed concrete joint venture

between HeidelbergCement and De Hoop Terneuzen

IP/05/1173 21.9.2005 Commission welcomes CFI ruling in EDP/ENI/GDP case

IP/05/1176 22.9.2005 Commission clears Třinecké železárny’s takeover of VVT

IP/05/1182 23.9.2005 Mergers: Commission opens in-depth inquiry into Omya’s purchase

of J.M. Huber’s on-site paper mineral business

IP/05/1183 26.9.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Lynx by UPS

IP/05/1193 27.9.2005 Commission approves acquisition of joint control of CPI by Electra

and CVC

IP/05/1200 29.9.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Wheelabrator Allevard by LBO

France

IP/05/1210 30.9.2005 Commission authorises the creation of a joint venture between

Sofiprotéol and the Bunge Group

IP/05/1234 7.10.2005 Commission approves acquisition of MCI by Verizon

IP/05/1265 12.10.2005 Commission clears the planned acquisition of CP Ships by TUI,


IP/05/1266 12.10.2005 Commission approves acquisition of car airbag producer Dalphi Metal

España by TRW

IP/05/1267 13.10.2005 Commission clears planned acquisition of Salomon by Amer Group,


31


32


IP/05/1282 14.10.2005 Commission approves acquisition of control of Züblin by Strabag;

refers review of regional asphalt markets to Germany’s Federal Cartel

Office

IP/05/1283 14.10.2005 Commission clears joint acquisition of Baltic Grain Terminal by ADM

Szamotuły and Cefetra

IP/05/1299 18.10.2005 Commission approves acquisition of German bank HVB by

Italy’s UniCredito

IP/05/1305 18.10.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into Danish energy merger

IP/05/1306 18.10.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into AMI’s purchase of

Eurotecnica

IP/05/1327 21.10.2005 Commission analysis of past merger remedies provides guidance for

future cases

IP/05/1340 24.10.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Amena by France Télécom

IP/05/1356 27.10.2005 Commission declines Portuguese and Italian requests to consider

effects of proposed Gas Natural/Endesa merger on their markets

IP/05/1386 8.11.2005 Financial sector: Commission presents analysis of obstacles to cross-

border mergers and acquisitions

IP/05/1401 9.11.2005 Commission approves acquisition of BPB by Compagnie de Saint-

Gobain

IP/05/1409 10.11.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Kappa Holding B.V. by Jefferson

Smurfit, subject to conditions

IP/05/1417 14.11.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into T-Mobil Austria’s

takeover of Tele.Ring

IP/05/1425 15.11.2005 Commission rejects Endesa’s complaint; declares proposed Gas

Natural takeover of Endesa falls outside Commission’s competence

IP/05/1453 22.11.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Ford Lease Business Partner by

Société Générale

IP/05/1472 24.11.2005 Commission clears the acquisition of Exel by Deutsche Post

IP/05/1475 25.11.2005 Commission approves creation of Behr Hella Service joint venture

IP/05/1478 25.11.2005 Commission clears acquisition by FIAT of vehicle fleet management

company Leasys

IP/05/1479 25.11.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Ivax by Teva

IP/05/1521 1.12.2005 Commission approves Belgacom’s acquisition of Telindus

IP/05/1522 1.12.2005 Commission clears the planned acquisition of Delmas by CMA CGM

IP/05/1553 9.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Helios Kliniken GmbH by

Fresenius AG

IP/05/1554 9.12.2005 Commission clears the acquisition of Landis by Fives-Lille

IP/05/1563 9.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Innovene by the INEOS Group

IP/05/1581 13.12.2005 Commission improves rules for access to the file in merger and anti-

trust procedures

IP/05/1584 13.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of the rheological additives and

carbonless clay businesses of Süd-Chemie AG by Rockwood

Specialties Group Inc.

IP/05/1601 14.12.2005 Commission welcomes upholding of the Commission’s decision in

GE/Honeywell case

IP/05/1602 14.12.2005 Commission opens in-depth investigation into Cargill’s takeover of

Degussa’s food ingredients business

IP/05/1649 20.12.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Georgia-Pacific by Koch Industries

IP/05/1650 20.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of most of Marconi’s businesses by

Ericsson

IP/05/1658 21.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition by E.ON of MOL’s gas business,


IP/05/1680 21.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Aral ČR by OMV

IP/05/1681 21.12.2005 Commission clears acquisition of German slaughterhouse company

Südfleisch by Dutch group Sovion

IP/05/1692 22.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Vodafone Sverige by Telenor

IP/05/1698 22.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of car component producer

Dynamitt Nobel Kunststoff by Plastal

IP/05/1700 22.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of Siebel by Oracle

IP/05/1701 22.12.2005 Commission refers part of Tesco acquisition of the Czech and Slovak

business of Carrefour to Slovak competition authority and approves

rest of the deal

IP/05/1702 22.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition of joint control in Soulès by InVivo

and Toepfer International

IP/05/1703 22.12.2005 Commission clears planned acquisition of control over Eurowings by

Lufthansa, subject to conditions

IP/05/1704 22.12.2005 Commission clears the planned acquisition of Bax Global by Deutsche

Bahn

IP/05/1705 23.12.2005 Commission approves acquisition by Basell of Société du Craqueur de

l’Aubette and related assets

IP/05/1706 23.12.2005 Commission clears acquisition of Danish Elsam and Energi E2 assets by

Vattenfall

C – Judgments/orders of the Community courts

1. Court of Justice


C-12/03 Commission v Tetra Laval 15.2.2005 OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

and C-13/03



T-87/05 EDP v Commission 21.9.2005 OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

T-209/05 and GE and Honeywell v Commission 14.2.2005 OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

T-210/05

33


IV – STATE AID CONTROL

A – Legislative provisions and notices adopted or proposed by the Commission

Title Date Publication

Commission communication concerning the prolongation 7.12.2005 OJ C 310, 8.12.2005, p. 10

of the Community framework for State aid

for research and development

Commission Directive 2005/81/EC, amending 13.7.2005 OJ L 312, 29.11.2005,

Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of pp. 47-48

financial relations between Member States

and public undertakings

Commission decision on the application 13.7.2005 OJ L 312, 29.11.2005,

of Article 86(2) of the Treaty to State aid in the form pp. 67-73

of public service compensation granted to certain

undertakings entrusted with the operation of

services of general economic interest

Community framework for State aid in the form 13.7.2005 OJ C 297, 29.11.2005,

of public service compensation pp. 4-7

Communication of the Commission to Member States 21.12.2005 OJ C 325, 22.12.2005,

amending the communication pursuant to Article 93(1) pp. 22-23

[now Article 87] of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92

and 93 [now Articles 87 and 88] of the Treaty to

short-term export-credit insurance

Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 21.12.2005 OJ C 54, 4.3.2006, pp. 3-44

B – List of cases in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries,

transport and the coal industry

1. Cases in which the Commission found, without opening a formal investiga -

tion, that there was no aid element within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC

Decision Case OJ

Belgium

N 608/2004 3.5.2005 Flemish CHP – Certificates OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

Czech Republic

N 432/2004 7.6.2005 Measure in favour of Boeing Ceska OJ C 314, 10.12.2005

and the Boeing Company

NN 52/2005 22.6.2005 Subsidies to mortgage loan instalments OJ C 323, 10.9.2005

Denmark

NN 1/2005 20.7.2005 Water tax relief for VAT – OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

registered companies

N 5/2005 20.7.2005 Danish scheme for tax reduction of OJ C 280, 12.11.2005

donations to cultural institutions

N 604a/2004 6.9.2005 Fiscal treatment of quotas OJ C 275, 8.11.2005

34


France

N 382/2004 3.5.2005 Haut débit en Limousin – DORSAL OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

Germany

N 34/2005 16.3.2005 German Innovation Initiative OJ C 138, 7.6.2005

N 570/2004 5.7.2005 Promotion of investment to set up a OJ C 327, 23.12.2005

closed lifecycle management

NN 72/2005 6.9.2005 BayernLB – Recapitalisation

NN 71/2005 6.9.2005 HSH Nordbank recapitalisation

N 248/2004 6.9.2005 Hessischer Investitionsfonds OJ C 314, 10.12.2005

Hungary

N 123/2005 20.7.2005 Earmarked scheme for tourism and culture

Ireland

N 395/2005 7.12.2005 Loan guarantees for social infrastructure

schemes funded by the

Housing Finance Agency (HFA)

Italy

N 334/2004 5.7.2005 Trento – Système provincial de recherche

et d'innovation

N 198/2005 7.12.2005 IRAP Deductions – Law n. 80/2005, OJ C 42, 18.2.2006

art. 11-ter – employment aid

Netherlands

N 574/2004 2.2.2005 Exemption from the waste tax OJ C 68, 19.3.2005

for dredging sludge

N 555/2004 6.4.2005 Individual measures in favour of Omniworld OJ C 333, 29.12.2005

N 465/2005 23.11.2005 School support services OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

Poland

NN 55/2005 20.7.2005 Heritage conservation, Poland OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

Sweden

N 524/2004 16.3.2005 Investment aid for energy efficiency

and conversion to renewable source

in public premises

United Kingdom

N 117/2005 21.9.2005 Broadband aggregated procurement – Scotland

2. Measures which the Commission considered compatible with the common

market without opening a formal investigation under Article 88(2) ECAustria

N 396/2004 11.1.2005 Aid scheme – Research, technological OJ C 39, 16.2.2006

development and innovation in Vienna

N 622/2003 16.3.2005 Fund for Digitalisation OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

N 56/2005 29.3.2005 Förderprogramm ‘Industrielle Kompetenz- OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

zentren und Kompetenznetzwerke’

N 76/2005 27.6.2005 Support of generators of green electricity

from solid biomass – Tyrol

35

IV – State aid control

N 77/2005 12.7.2005 Fund for TV film support OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

(prolongation of Case N 513/03)

N 564b/2004 6.9.2005 Guidelines of the Land of Niederösterreich OJ C 270, 29.10.2005

for damages caused by natural disasters

N 350/2005 13.9.2005 Amendments for fine dust reduction to

the Austrian guidelines for environmental

aid 2002

NN 43/2004 5.10.2005 Tax exemption for biofuels OJ C 34, 10.2.2006

N 263/2005 20.10.2005 Broadband for Kärnten OJ C 329, 24.12.2005

N 457/2005 28.10.2005 K-plus competence programme OJ C 19, 26.1.2006

N 435/2005 7.12.2005 Summer floods 2005 OJ C 85, 8.4.2006

Belgium

N 201/2004 10.2.2005 Accises sur produits énergétiques OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

et de l'électricité

N 281/2005 20.10.2005 Flemish Innovation Fund (VINNOF) OJ C 14, 19.1.2006

N 467/2005 21.12.2005 Prolongation of State aid scheme:

Flemish Audiovisual Fund

N 334/2005 23.12.2005 Taux d'accise réduit en faveur OJ C 34, 10.2.2006

des biocarburants

Cyprus

N 362/2005 12.8.2005 Amendment of the scheme for the OJ C 242, 1.10.2005

protection of the environment from

industrial pollution (CY6/04)

Czech Republic

N 300/2004 13.1.2005 Sale of land for subsidised price in the OJ C 34, 10.2.2006

industrial zone in the street Jamska

in Zdar nad Sazavou

N 535/2004 2.3.2005 Centres of basic research OJ C 29, 4.2.2006

N 600/2004 2.3.2005 Approval of capacity reductions for VPFM OJ C 176, 16.7.2005

CZ 181/2004 27.4.2005 Framework programme for support of

establishment and expansion of technology

centres and centres of business support

services

N 223/2005 5.7.2005 Amendment of excise exemption and OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

operating subsidies for biodiesel

N 597/2004 20.7.2005 Lignit Hodonín, s.r.o. OJ C 250, 8.10.2005

N 232/2005 29.9.2005 National Research Programme II – OJ C 327, 23.12.2005

Parts TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, PP1

CZ 110/2004 20.10.2005 Inhibition programme for coal, OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

ore and uranium mining in 2002-2005

N 414/2005 24.11.2005 Nanotechnologies for society OJ C 14, 19.1.2006

N 579/2005 20.12.2005 Centres of basic research OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

N 581/2005 20.12.2005 R&D research centres OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

N 196e/2005 21.12.2005 Programme for support of utilisation of waste

Denmark

N 89/2005 22.3.2005 Shipbuilding – OJ C 16, 21.1.2006

Temporary defensive mechanism

N 317a/2004 21.4.2005 Energy tax relief for certain production OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

of amino acids

36


N 214/2005 15.7.2005 Promoting SMEs' use of e-business OJ C 314, 10.12.2005

NN 75/2004 20.7.2005 Reliefs from the taxes on electricity and CO2 OJ C 275, 8.11.2005

N 38/2005 20.7.2005 R&D aid for environmental projects OJ C 305, 2.12.2005

N 216/2005 26.8.2005 Geocenter Møns Klint OJ C 307, 5.12.2005

N 269/2005 13.9.2005 High Technology Foundation OJ C 316, 13.12.2005

N 229/2005 13.10.2005 Regional technology centres OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

N 602/2004 9.11.2005 Support to environmentally friendly OJ C 21, 28.1.2006

electricity production

Estonia

N 601/2004 23.2.2005 Promotion of research, OJ C 191, 5.8.2005

development and innovation

N 288/2005 7.7.2005 Alterations to aid scheme N601/04 – OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

Promotion of research and development

N 116/2005 7.7.2005 Short-term export-credit guarantees OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

provided by Kredex

N 282/2005 27.7.2005 Tourism product development and OJ C 26, 2.2.2006

marketing support scheme

N 314/2005 27.7.2005 Excise reduction for biofuels OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

N 256/2005 2.9.2005 Amendments to pollution charge OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

substitution scheme

N 392/2005 10.10.2005 Amendment of EE1/04 – Investment OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

support for business infrastructure

N 455/2005 28.10.2005 Collaborative Research Programme OJ C 16, 21.1.2006

Finland

N 164/2004 11.1.2005 Midinvest fund scheme OJ C 133, 31.5.2005

N 188/2004 19.1.2005 South East Finland risk capital fund OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

N 39/2005 9.3.2005 Temporary defensive mechanism OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

for shipbuilding

N 331/2004 29.3.2005 Modification de la carte des aides OJ C 323, 10.9.2005

à finalité régionale 2000-2006

France

N 407/2004 19.1.2005 Régime d'aide aux projets de la R&D OJ C 21, 28.1.2006

dans les pôles de compétitivité

N 575/2004 20.1.2005 Aide au sauvetage en faveur OJ C 16, 21.1.2006

de l'entreprise ERNAULT

N 316/2004 2.2.2005 DOM – Régime de capital risque PME OJ C 248, 7.10.2005

N 172/2004 16.2.2005 R&D aid for Philips Semiconductors OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

in Caen (Basse Normandie)

N 429/2004 16.3.2005 Régime d'aide à l'innovation OJ C 256, 15.10.2005

dans le secteur naval

N 553/2004 1.6.2005 Exonération d'impôt en faveur des sociétés OJ C 142, 1.10.2005

créées pour reprendre une entreprise

industrielle en difficulté

(nouvel art. 44 septies du CGI)

N 54/2005 7.6.2005 Chaîne française d'information internationale OJ C 256, 15.10.2005

N 370/2004 20.7.2005 Aide à la restructuration de la société

Imprimerie nationale

N 64/2005 13.9.2005 Modification du régime d'aides à la gestion OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

des énergies renouvelables de l'ADEME

N 572/2004 13.9.2005 Martinique: aide individuelle à la formation OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

‘club les Boucaniers’

37


N 421/2005 7.10.2005 France Martinique 2000-2006 – Bonification OJ C 83, 6.4.2006

d'intérêts - 2ème modification du régime

N 378/2000

N 202/2004 24.10.2005 Souscription aux sociétés de capital OJ C 29, 4.2.2006

investissement – Régime cadre

de la Martinique

N 261/2005 9.11.2005 Aides à la création audiovisuelle OJ C 42, 18.2.2006

innovante – FR

N 372/2005 7.12.2005 Projet d'aide au moteur franco-russe OJ C 26, 2.2.2006

SaM 146 (SNECMA)

N 554/2005 12.12.2005 Prorogation pour une année de l'aide à

l'emploi au secteur de la restauration –

N330/04

N 531/2005 21.12.2005 Création de la banque postale OJ C 21, 28.1.2006

N 484/2005 22.12.2005 Prolongation du programme EUREKA ITEA

Germany

N 549/2004 11.1.2005 Aid to innovative, technology oriented joint OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

projects in the field of technologies of the

future in Saxony

N 543/2004 11.1.2005 Support of investments in non-university OJ C 248, 7.10.2005

research facilities in Saxony – prolongation

of existing scheme NN 31/98

N 544/2004 19.1.2005 Support of technology transfer in Saxony – OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

prolongation of existing aid N 558/2001

N 142a/2004 19.1.2005 Law on investment premiums – standard rules OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

NN 77/2004 19.1.2005 Bavarian technology aid programme – OJ C 39, 16.2.2006

prolongation of aid scheme

N 550/2004 26.1.2005 Aide aux assistants à l'innovation/ OJ C 95, 20.4.2005

‘Innovationsassistentenförderung’

N 260b/2004 11.2.2005 Insulating material from renewable raw OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

materials – modification of scheme

N 452/2004 16.2.2005 Innovation aid for shipbuilding OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

N 2/2005 24.2.2005 R&D aid to Diehl Avionics GmbH OJ C 12, 18.1.2006

N 457/2004 2.3.2005 State aid to Q-Cells AG OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

N 1/2005 2.3.2005 Navigation and maritime technology for OJ C 26, 2.2.2006

the 21st century – prolongation

N 548/2004 3.3.2005 Aid to development of new or novel OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

products and methods in the free

state of Saxony

N 19/2004 16.3.2005 R&D aid for biomass OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

N 23/2005 16.3.2005 Temporary defensive mechanism, OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

TDM – Renewal

NN 44/2004 20.4.2005 Rescue aid to SVZ Schwarze Pumpe GmbH OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

N 560/2004 20.4.2005 HOLZSTADT OJ C 183, 26.7.2005

N 122/2005 3.5.2005 Aid to CSG Solar AG Thalheim OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

NN 43/2005 7.6.2005 Environmental aid to Solvay Soda OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

Deutschland GmbH

N 410/2004 7.6.2005 Environmental aid to Solvay Soda OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

Deutschland GmbH

N 142b/2004 1.7.2005 Law on investment premiums – OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

specific rules for medium-sized firms

in difficulty

N 364/2004 5.7.2005 EFRE-Wachstumsfonds Sachsen OJ C 307, 5.12.2005

38


N 104/2005 20.7.2005 Regio MIT risk capital fund Hessen OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

N 212/2005 23.8.2005 Bavarian applied research programme OJ C 270, 29.10.2005

N 287/2005 24.8.2005 Aid for the use of renewable energy

N 307/2005 9.9.2005 Nordpower Innovationspark Lübeck OJ C 316, 13.12.2005

N 345/2005 13.9.2005 ERDF risk capital fund Schleswig-Holstein OJ C 325, 22.12.2005

N 423/2005 7.10.2005 Research for the production of tomorrow OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

N 424/2005 28.10.2005 High technologies for the 21st century – OJ C 19, 26.1.2006

Bavaria

N 442/2005 9.11.2005 Flood in August 2005 – Bavaria OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

N 333/2005 9.11.2005 ERP – Innovation Programme 2005 OJ C 21, 28.1.2006

N 175a/2005 9.11.2005 Support of demonstration projects for use OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

of energy from renewable sources

N 454/2005 22.11.2005 Innovation and new energy technologies – OJ C 34, 10.2.2006

5. Federal programme for research

in the field of energy

N 535/2005 23.11.2005 Support for the technological OJ C 21, 28.1.2006

advancement of SMEs

N 475/2005 24.11.2005 Regulation of the Land of Thüringen on OJ C 14, 19.1.2006

support of research establishments close

to business (prolongation)

N 409/2005 29.11.2005 INNO-REGIO

N 466b/2005 7.12.2005 Bavarian Hardship Fund – Flood 2005

N 446/2005 12.12.2005 Adam Ost GmbH

NN 74/2005 21.12.2005 Support of audiovisual OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

production – Schleswig-Holstein

N 453/2005 23.12.2005 R&D programme ‘Building and Living’ OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

Greece

N 573/2004 2.2.2005 Incentives for private investments OJ C 248, 7.10.2005

N 596/2003 2.2.2005 Neorion shipyards – extension of three-year OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

delivery limit for a cruise vessel

N 24/2005 8.4.2005 Programme for the development of industrial OJ C 323, 10.9.2005

research and technology in enterprises

N 67/2005 27.4.2005 Amendment of the R&D aid scheme OJ C 187, 30.7.2005

N 329/2002

N 169/2005 23.5.2005 Amendments to TANEO Risk Capital Fund

N 236/2005 28.6.2005 Amendment of the Greek Regional Aid Map OJ C 323, 20.12.2005

N 488/2005 29.11.2005 Modification to aid scheme N 547/01 – OJ C 26, 2.2.2006

Effective cooperation in R&D

N 568/2005 23.12.2005 Digital leap venture capital fund

N 612/2005 28.12.2005 TANEO – Third amendment

Hungary

N 427/2004 16.3.2005 Tax exemption for biofuels OJ C 133, 31.5.2005

N 123/2005 20.7.2005 Earmarked scheme for tourism and culture OJ C 314, 10.12.2005

HU 4/2004 21.12.2005 Act II of 2004 on motion pictures

Ireland

N 306/2004 19.1.2005 Modifications Western Investment Fund – OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

Risk Capital Scheme

N 599/2004 2.3.2005 Scheme of Excise Relief for Biofuels OJ C 98, 22.4.2005

N 207/2005 5.10.2005 Audiovisual Funding Scheme, Ireland OJ C 12, 18.1.2006

N 395/2005 7.12.2005 Loan guarantees for social infrastructure

schemes funded by the

Housing Finance Agency (HFA)

39


Italy

N 250/2004 19.1.2005 Constitution de fonds pour la restructuration OJ C 323, 20.2.2005

et la reconversion d'entreprises en difficulté

N 173/2003 9.3.2005 Regione Campania – Fondo Chiuso OJ C 250, 8.10.2005

Regionale – Risk Capital Fund for SMEs

N 346/2004 16.3.2005 Environmental aid – Altair Chimica OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

N 345/2004 16.3.2005 Environmental aid to Solvay – OJ C 176, 16.7.2005

Modification of N323/2003

N 450/2003 17.3.2005 Lazio – Aid to research and testing of new OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

drugs and therapeutic indication of

existing drugs

N 17/2005 15.4.2005 Refunding of the industrial part of OJ C 265, 26.10.2005

R&D scheme N 240/03 – Friuli-Venezia Giulia

N 108/2005 11.5.2005 Région Toscane – Aides à la conversion OJ C 59, 11.3.2006

des contrats d'emploi

N 271/2004 19.5.2005 Measure 1. A of the industrial research, OJ C 59, 11.3.2006

innovation and technology transfer regional

plan

N 565/2003 20.5.2005 Aides en faveur de la réduction de la OJ C 252, 12.10.2005

consommation d'énergie (Sicilia)

N 91/2005 7.6.2005 Rescue aid in favour of Computer OJ C 187, 30.7.2005

Manufacturing Services S.p.A.

N 433/2004 14.6.2005 Région Frioul – Vénétie Julienne: OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

Aide à finalité environnementale à l'industrie

N 582/2004 21.6.2005 Modification of N461/01 – exemption from OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

exercise duty on biodiesel

N 356/2004 22.6.2005 Tessenderlo Italia – Environmental aid OJ C 323, 10.9.2005

N 130/2005 28.6.2005 Mesures en faveur des activités industrielles OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

N 506/2004 28.6.2005 Campania – Aid for R&D to large enterprises OJ C 323, 20.12.2005

N 334/2004 5.7.2005 Trento – Système provincial de recherche OJ C 248, 7.10.2005

et d'innovation

N 299/2004 5.8.2005 Cooperatives equity financing – Marche OJ C 316, 13.12.2005

N 178/2005 21.9.2005 Crédit d'impôt sur les frais de fourniture OJ C 29, 4.2.2006

de papier en faveur des éditeurs

N 336/2005 29.9.2005 Fondimpresa – Programma formativo OJ C 270, 29.10.2005

‘Innovare per competere’

N 228/2005 29.9.2005 Adaptation to the 2003 SME definition OJ C 29, 4.2.2006

for scheme N214/03


for scheme N710/99


for scheme N747/97


for scheme N445/2000


for scheme N715/99

NN 74/2003 17.11.2005 Interventions in favour of employment aid OJ C 39, 16.2.2006

N 394/2005 18.11.2005 Emergency planning for natural disasters OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

N 483/2005 29.11.2005 EOS project – Energy from solid oxides OJ C 26, 2.2.2006

N 198/2005 7.12.2005 IRAP Deductions – Law n. 80/2005,

art. 11-ter – employment aid

N 97/2004 7.12.2005 Environmental aid for Meccano Aeronautica

40


Latvia

N 380/2004 19.1.2005 Latvijas Gaze OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

N 255/2005 24.11.2005 Aid for modernisation of the OJ C 72, 24.3.2006

business infrastructure

Lithuania

N 584/2004 1.6.2005 Restructuring aid to AB Vingriai OJ C 187, 30.7.2005

N 425/2004 1.6.2005 Kaunas Free Economic Zone OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

N 44/2005 27.7.2005 Biofuel – Environmental protection OJ C 329, 24.12.2005

N 337/2005 7.12.2005 Ignalina nuclear power plant tax exemptions

Luxembourg

N 205d/2004 30.3.2005 Régime d'aide à l'innovation, OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

à la recherche et au développement

N 205c/2004 30.3.2005 Régime d'aide pour la protection OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

de l'environnement

Netherlands

N 492/2004 2.2.2005 Ad-hoc regional investment aid OJ C 176, 16.7.2005

in favour of SABIC

N 450/2004 2.2.2005 Development aid to Ghana-Tugboats OJ C 100, 26.4.2005

N 542/2004 3.5.2005 Introduction of a risk equalisation system OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

in the Dutch health insurance

N 541/2004 3.5.2005 Retention of financial reserves by OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

Dutch health insurance funds

N 580/2004 1.6.2005 Dutch film production support scheme OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

NN 24/2005 23.6.2005 Environmental investment deduction OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

N 105/2005 19.7.2005 Seed facility risk capital fund, Netherlands OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

N 253/2005 20.7.2005 Guarantee scheme for shipbuilding OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

N 185/2005 20.7.2005 Development aid to Vietnam – Shipbuilding OJ C 242, 1.10.2005

N 85/2005 27.7.2005 Soil rehabilitation OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

N 346/2005 29.9.2005 Subsidy scheme for innovative research OJ C 327, 23.12.2005

and development programmes

N 295/2005 28.10.2005 CASIMIR – Programme 2005 OJ C 19, 26.1.2006

N 193/2005 7.12.2005 Facilités Marchés Emergents (FOM) OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

N 570/2005 22.12.2005 Tax reduction biofuel

N 358/2005 2312.2005 MICRODRUPPELS OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

Poland

PL 43/2004 20.1.2005 Regional aid for supporting new investments

and creating new jobs connected to a

new investment

PL 30/2004 20.1.2005 State aid for enterprises for environmental

protection

PL 27/2004 20.1.2005 Aid scheme for environmental protection for

small and medium-sized enterprises

PL 23/2004 20.1.2005 Horizontal aid for environmental protection

intended for investments aiming at application

of technologies that provide cleaner and

energy-saving production and saving of

raw materials

41


PL 22/2004 20.1.2005 Regional aid for initial investments aiming at

application of technologies that provide

cleaner and energy-saving production and

saving of raw materials


intended for investments aiming at reduction

of volatile organic compounds emissions


reduction of volatile organic compounds

emissions


intended for investments aiming at

improvements of fuels quality and engine

technologies


improvements of fuels quality and engine

technologies

PL 16/2004 20.1.2005 Regional aid for initial investments in the

scope of landfills


for investments aiming at reduction of

emission from fuel combustion plants


reduction of emissions from fuel combustion

plants


for investments related to renewable

energy sources

PL 9/2004 20.1.2005 Regional aid for initial investments related to

renewable energy sources

PL 7/2004 20.1.2005 Regional aid for initial investments aimed at

adapting installations to the requirements of

the best available techniques

PL 6/2004 20.1.2005 Regional aid for initial investments in the

scope of waste management

PL 4/2004 20.1.2005 Regional aid for initial investments aimed at

protecting water against contamination

N 585/2004 15.2.2005 Regional aid scheme for entrepreneurs in OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

the city of Olsztyn

PL 41/2004 9.3.2005 Regional aid scheme for the entrepreneurs

active in special economic zones granted in

the form of annulment of the arrears of the

real estate tax to the large and motor

vehicle sector entrepreneurs

PL 40/2004 9.3.2005 Regional aid scheme for the entrepreneurs

active in special economic zones granted in

the form of the real estate tax exemption,

to the large and motor vehicle-sector

entrepreneurs

PL 39/2004 9.3.2005 Regional aid scheme for the enterprises

conducting business activity in the special

economic zones, on the basis of a permit

issued after 31 December 2000.

N 81/2005 30.3.2005 Temporary defensive measures OJ C 162, 2.7.2005

for shipbuilding

42


N 106/2005 20.4.2005 Hala Ludowa in Wroclaw OJ C 265, 26.10.2005

N 603/2004 2.5.2005 Regional aid scheme for job creation in Kutno OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

N 90/2005 11.5.2005 Regional aid scheme for new investments OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

in the city of Lodz

N 15/2005 18.5.2005 Regional aid scheme for new investments OJ C 265, 26.10.2005

and jobs creation in the district of Wroclaw

N 20/2005 1.6.2005 Regional and horizontal scheme aiming at OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

reduction of emissions from fuel combustion

plants

N 16/2005 14.6.2005 Regional aid scheme for new investments in OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

the tourism sector in Poland

N 393/2004 14.6.2005 Regional aid scheme for large investments OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

N 14/2005 21.6.2005 Regional aid for renewable energy sources

related investments

N 249/2005 28.6.2005 Energetyka Wislosan – Electricity supply

N 244/2005 7.7.2005 Regional aid scheme for enterprises OJ C 323, 20.12.2005

in the commune of Pakosc

N 186/2005 20.7.2005 Mittal Steel Poland – change of IBP OJ C 12, 18.1.2006

NN 55/2005 20.7.2005 Heritage conservation, Poland

N 235a/2005 6.9.2005 Aid in support of technological innovation OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

N 341/2005 9.9.2005 Regional aid scheme for enterprises in OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

the special economic zone of Czestochowa

N 274/2005 13.9.2005 Rescue aid to Huta Cynku Miasteczko Slaskie S.A. OJ C 21, 28.1.2006

N 18/2005 14.9.2005 Regional aid scheme for initial investments

granted within the framework of privatisation

process

N 242b/2005 19.9.2005 Regional aid scheme for enterprises in the OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

special economic zone of Katowice

(city of Zabrze)

N 242a/2005 19.9.2005 Regional aid scheme for enterprises in the OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

city of Zabrze (entity ‘M. Kopernik’)

N 370/2005 29.9.2005 Regional aid scheme for entrepreneurs in OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

the city of Stargard Szczecinski

N 221/2005 7.10.2005 Regional aid scheme for enterprises in the OJ C 325, 22.12.2005

commune of Kobierzyce

N 411/2005 1.12.2005 Regional aid scheme for enterprises OJ C 85, 8.4.2006

investing in the commune of Szczecin

N 450/2005 12.12.2005 Aid scheme for entrepreneurs in the city

of Starachowice

N 243/2005 12.12.2005 Regional aid scheme for enterprises in the OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

commune and the city of Nowe Skalmierzyce

N 61/2005 21.12.2005 Restructuring aid granted within the OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

framework of privatisation process

PL 56/2004 21.12.2005 Restructuring aid scheme for firms in difficulty,

which are debtors to the State Treasury as a

result of executing agreements on financial

sureties or guarantees

PL 53/2004 21.12.2005 Restructuring aid scheme for firms in difficulty,

granted in the forms of sureties and guarantees

PL 52/2004 21.12.2005 Restructuring aid scheme for firms in difficulty

PL 29/2004 21.12.2005 Regional aid for supporting new investments

and creating new jobs connected to a new

investment

N 430/2005 22.12.2005 Regional aid scheme for entrepreneurs OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

in Mlawa City

43


Portugal

N 479/2004 7.6.2005 Training aid to Nestlé OJ C 252, 12.10.2005

N 126/2005 5.7.2005 Individual R&D aid to BIAL OJ C 275, 8.11.2005

N 360/2005 25.8.2005 Prolongation regional development OJ C 34, 10.2.2006

scheme of the Azores

Slovakia

N 300/2005 24.8.2005 Audiovisual work – ALEF OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

N 299/2005 24.8.2005 Audiovisual work – TaO Productions OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

N 298/2005 24.8.2005 Audiovisual work – TYZAM OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

N 297/2005 24.8.2005 Audiovisual work – Trigon Production OJ C 333, 29.12.2005

N 354/2005 23.11.2005 Individual aid in favour of newspaper – OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

Madach-Posonium, s.r.o. Bratislava

N 352/2005 23.11.2005 LOAR S.R.O. – Individual aid in favour OJ C 21, 28.1.2006

of newspaper

N 355/2005 23.11.2005 Kalligram s.r.o. – Individual aid in favour OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

of newspaper

N 542/2005 21.12.2005 State aid in favour of Vydavatel'stvo spolku OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

slovenských spisovatel'ov s.r.o. –

Individual aid for literary periodical

N 537/2005 21.12.2005 Aid in favour of Jakubisko Film Bratislava OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

Slovenia

SI 7/2003 2.2.2005 Slovenian electricity tariffs

N 537/2004 2.3.2005 Co-financing of projects from the budget OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

fund for audiovisual media

N 536a/2004 3.5.2005 The support of media programmes OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

Spain

N 500/2004 7.1.2005 Incentives to industrial investment in research, OJ C 172, 12.7.2005

development and technological innovation

for sectors highly exposed to international

competition in Cataluña

N 563/2004 26.1.2005 Canary Islands — Amendment of scheme OJ C 95, 20.4.2005

N 708/98 — Operating aid

(Zona Especial Canaria)

N 128/2004 26.1.2005 ES (îles Canaries) – article 27 du régimes OJ C 92, 16.4.2005

économique et fiscal des Canarie

N 499/2004 2.2.2005 Aid to mining activities (scheme) OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

N 502/2004 25.2.2005 Incentives to joint research and technological OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

development projects

N 498/2004 25.2.2005 R&D aid scheme in strategic sectors OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

N 446/2004 8.3.2005 Aid to firms for subcontracting industrial OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

research and precompetitive development

activities – modification of aid scheme N446/04

N 517/2004 16.3.2005 Shipbuilding – Development aid for a OJ C 162, 2.7.2005

tugboat for Bangladesh

N 423/2004 16.3.2005 Aides horizontales à la construction navale OJ C 250, 8.10.2005

(2004-2006)

N 583/2004 6.4.2005 Broadband in rural and ultra-remote areas OJ C 252, 12.10.2005

N 419/2004 6.4.2005 Extremadura cinema and audiovisual OJ C 333, 29.12.2005

support scheme

N 101/2005 18.5.2005 Aid to reindustrialisation OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

44


N 121/2005 7.7.2005 Aid to technological innovation in the OJ C 327, 23.12.2005

biotechnology sector in Madrid

N 172/2005 14.7.2005 Aid to innovation and technological OJ C 305, 2.12.2005

development in the information technologies

sector in Madrid

N 359/2005 22.8.2005 Prolongation aid to investment (PRECOMA) OJ C 29, 4.2.2006

N 519/2004 2.9.2005 Aid in favour of projects concerning energy OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

saving, energy efficiency and use of

renewable energies

N 188/2005 14.9.2005 Modification of aid schemes for renewable OJ C 307, 5.12.2005

energy and energy efficiency

N 396/2005 23.9.2005 Scheme of aid to audiovisual production OJ C 12, 18.1.2006

Andalucia (modification and prolongation)

N 363/2005 29.9.2005 Aid to Iberdrola Murcia OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

N 368/2005 30.9.2005 ES – Andalucia: promotion of audiovisual works OJ C 39, 16.2.2006

N 173/2005 7.10.2005 Aid to R&D – Projects in Asturias OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

N 410/2005 28.10.2005 Programme CENIT OJ C 19, 26.1.2006

N 344/2005 28.10.2005 Neotec risk capital fund OJ C 14, 19.1.2006

N 477/2005 8.11.2005 Aid to economic diversification in Aragon

N 436/2005 9.11.2005 Aid to Mauritania – Shipbuilding

N 509/2005 18.11.2005 Technological innovation in the OJ C 19, 26.1.2006

aerospace sector

N 449/2005 23.11.2005 Madrid – State aid for the production OJ C 12, 18.1.2006

of short films

N 342/2005 29.11.2005 Prolongation du plan d'innovation pour OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

les entreprises

N 84/2005 21.12.2005 Extension of economic and fiscal regime OJ C 42, 18.2.2006

of the Canary Islands

N 361/2005 22.12.2005 Aid to firms for subcontracting industrial OJ C 85, 8.4.2006

research and precompetitive development

activities – modification of aid scheme N446/04

Sweden

NN 66/2003 19.1.2005 Prolongation and modification of two OJ C 223, 10.09.2005

environmental aid schemes

N 596/2004 21.1.2005 Modification of schemes N646/99 and N201/03 OJ C 323, 20.12.2005

– Regional development grant

N 524/2004 16.3.2005 Investment aid for energy efficiency and OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

conversion to renewable source in

public premises

N 187/2005 27.5.2005 Modification of schemes N596/04, OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

N201/03 and N646/99 – Regional investment

grant (ex regional development grant)

N 75/2005 1.6.2005 Environmental aid to Volvo Truck Corporation OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

N 187/2004 1.6.2005 Aid in favour of pilot projects for alternative OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

NN 51/2005 14.6.2005 Swedish film production aid scheme OJ C 270, 29.10.2005

N 220/2005 22.6.2005 Amendments to regional transport aid scheme OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

N 591/2005 22.12.2005 State aid in favour of Swedish film production OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

and film-related activities (the Swedish Film

Institute agreement)

N 596/2005 28.12.2005 Prolongation of energy tax on electricity for OJ C 72, 24.3.2006

the manufacturing sector

N 595/2005 28.12.2005 Prolongation of the CO2 tax relief for the OJ C 72, 24.3.2006

manufacturing sector (0.8 % rule)

45


N 594/2005 28.12.2005 Prolongation of reliefs from the energy and OJ C 72, 24.3.2006

CO2 taxes for fuels used for heat production

in CHPs

N 588/2005 28.12.2005 Prolongation of the manufacturing industry's OJ C 72, 24.3.2006

tax reliefs – CO2 and energy taxes on fossil

fuels (Sweden)

United Kingdom

N 477/2004 19.1.2005 UK Film Council Specialised Film Distribution OJ C 159, 30.6.2005

and Exhibition Initiatives

NN 83/2004 2.2.2005 Specialised P&A Fund OJ C 159, 30.6.2005

N 362/2004 23.2.2005 Renewable Obligation Order 2005 OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

N 591/2004 2.3.2005 Training aid to Ford Motor Company OJ C 103, 28.4.2005

N 601/2003 3.3.2005 UK – Special purpose equity vehicle (SPEV) OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

N 244/2003 6.4.2005 Credit union development support OJ C 223, 10.9.2005

N 11/2005 3.5.2005 Photovoltaic demonstration programme

N 57/2005 1.6.2005 Regional innovative broadband support

NN 42/2005 7.6.2005 Rescue aid in favour of MG Rover OJ C 187, 30.7.2005

N 503/2004 7.6.2005 UK – Irish Language Broadcast Fund OJ C 230, 20.9.2005

N 135/2005 5.7.2005 Infrastructure grant programme OJ C 295, 26.11.2005

N 231/2005 24.8.2005 Disaster recovery, United Biscuits – OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

McVitie Factory

NN 56/2005 9.9.2005 Low carbon research and development OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

programme

N 117/2005 21.9.2005 Broadband aggregated procurement – Scotland

N 267/2005 5.10.2005 Rural broadband access project OJ C 323, 20.12.2005

N 190a/2005 5.10.2005 Modification of the climate change levy

(N123/2000)

N 318/2005 20.10.2005 Wave and tidal stream energy demonstration

Scheme

NN 81/2005 20.10.2005 Nesta invention and innovation programme OJ C 85, 8.4.2006

N 425/2005 8.11.2005 Prolongation of Viridian growth fund OJ C 26, 2.2.2006

N 473/2005 17.11.2005 PARC industry programme support scheme OJ C 19, 26.1.2006

N 474/2005 12.12.2005 Amendments to renewables obligation OJ C 29, 4.2.2006

scheme

N 319/2005 22.12.2005 Grant for the collaborative R&D revision of OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

N761/2002

3. Aid cases in which the Commission initiated proceedings under

Article 88(2) EC in respect of all or part of the measure

Belgium

N 331/2005 9.11.2005 FORD GENK OJ C 47, 25.2.2006

(C 40 /2005)

France

N 426/2004 19.1.2005 Aide à la restructuration en faveur OJ C 137, 4.6.2005

(C 1/2005) d'Euromoteurs

NN 88/2004 5.7.2005 Laboratoire national d'essais OJ C 263, 22.10.2005

(C 24/2005)

N 250/2005 6.9.2005 Aide à la restructuration en faveur d'ERNAULT OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

(C 32/2005)

46


NN 84/2005 21.12.2005 Aide en faveur d'IFP et AXENS OJ C 42, 18.2.2006

(C 51/2005)

Germany

N 451/2004 16.2.2005 NUW – biofuel OJ C 86, 8.4.2005

(C 8/2005)

N 21/2005 16.3.2005 Aid for an ethylene pipeline – Bavaria OJ C 100, 26.4.2005

(C 11/2005)

N 611/2003 20.4.2005 Large investment aid under the 1998 OJ C 220, 8.9.2005

(C 12/2005) multisectoral framework in favour of e-glass AG

NN 18/2005 20.7.2005 MSF 98 – Glunz AG – Aid in favour of Glunz AG OJ C 263, 22.10.2005

(C 28/2005)

NN 52/2004 20.10.2005 Biria Gruppe OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

(C 38/2005)

Greece

NN 11/2004 20.10.2005 A tax-exempt reserve fund for OJ C 20, 27.1.2006

(C 37/2005) certain companies

NN 86/2005 7.12.2005 Aid to ELVO (Hellenic Vehicle Industry, S.A.) OJ C 34, 10.2.2006

(C 47/2005)

Hungary

NN 49 /2005 9.11.2005 Hungarian stranded costs OJ C 324, 21.12.2005

(C 41 /2005)

Italy

N 329/2004 6.9.2005 Loi régionale n. 21 – 29/12/2003 OJ C 263, 22.10.2005

(C 31/2005)

N 113/2005 21.9.2005 IRAP reduction – Regional Law 17/04 – Sicily OJ C 82, 5.4.2006

(C 34/2005)

NN 88/2005 21.12.2005 Digital decoders – Italy

Netherlands

NN 34/2005 3.5.2005 Aid towards VAOP Oud Papier OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

(C 15/2005)

N 78/2004 5.8.2005 Restructuring aid to KLIQ NV OJ C 280, 12.11.2005

(C 30/2005)

N 277/2004 21.9.2005 Aid to MARKT Passage Plan Project OJ C 333, 29.12.2005

(C 33/2005)

N 59/2005 20.10.2005 Broadband development, Appingedam OJ C 321, 16.12.2005

(C 35/2005)

Poland

N 592/2004 19.1.2005 Restructuring aid to DAEWOO – FSO OJ C 100, 26.4.2005

(C 3/2005)

N 203/2005 1.6.2005 Restructuring aid for Szczecin shipyard OJ C 222, 9.9.2005

(C 19/2005)

N 194/2005 1.6.2005 Restructuring aid for Gdynia shipyard OJ C 220, 8.9.2005

(C 17/2005)

N 438/2004 1.6.2005 Restructuring aid for Gdansk shipyard OJ C 220, 8.9.2005

(C 18/2005)

PL 49/2004 29.06.2005 Aid for Poczta Polska for investments related OJ C 270, 29.10.2005

(C 22/2005) to the provision of universal postal services

47


PL 45/2004 29.06.2005 State aid for Poczta Polska being the OJ C 270, 29.10.2005

(C 21/2005) compensation for carrying out universal

postal services

N 99/2005 23.11.2005 Stranded costs compensations in Poland OJ C 52, 2.3.2006

(C 43/2005)

NN 79/2005 23.11.2005 Restructuring aid for Huta Stalowa Wola S.A. OJ C 34, 10.2.2006

(C 44/2005)

N 233/2005 21.12.2005 Restructuring aid for Chemobudowa Krakow

Slovakia

NN 21/2005 5.7.2005 Measures in favour of Frucona Kosice OJ C 233, 22.9.2005

(C 25/2005)

NN 66/2005 9.11.2005 Restructuring aid for KONAS – Slovakia OJ C 323, 20.12.2005

(C 42/2005)

Slovenia

NN 80/2004 2.2.2005 Slovenian electricity tariffs OJ C 63, 15.3.2005

(C 7/2005)

United Kingdom

NN 57/2004 19.1.2005 Property tax on telecommunication OJ C 62, 12.3.2005

(C 4/2005) infrastructure

N 232/2004 1.6.2005 Sale of the Tote OJ C 168, 8.7.2005

(C 16/2005)

N 373/2005 20.10.2005 Investbx OJ C 288, 19.11.2005

(C 36/2005)

N 364/2005 7.12.2005 Waste and Resources Action Programme OJ C 9, 14.1.2006

(C 45/2005) (WRAP) recycled fibre printings and writings

grade mill capacity scheme

4. Aid cases in which the Commission extended proceedings under


France

C 79/2001 7.12.2005 Exemption from excise duty for the

production of alumina in Gardanne

Ireland


production of alumina in Shannon

Italy

C 61/2003 22.6.2005 Loi aéronautique italienne N808/85 cas OJ C 252, 12.10.2005

individuels/Legge aeronautica


production of alumina in Sardinia

48


5. Measures in which the Commission found no aid element (Article 88(2) EC)

France

C 53/2000 9.11.2005 Aid to MDPA (Mines de Potasse d'Alsace)

Italy

C 22/2003 2.3.2005 CR22/03 – Reform of training institutions

Poland

C 20/2004 5.7.2005 CR20/04 – Huta Czestochowa

6. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was compatible

with the common market and terminated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC

by way of a positive final decision

France

C 23/2003 20.7.2005 Misuse of development aid for ships R3/R4 OJ L 85, 23.3.2006



Germany

C 3/2004 3.5.2005 Technology centres OJ L 295, 11.11.2005

Ireland



Italy

C 48/2003 19.1.2005 De Tomaso Cutro OJ L 94, 1.4.2006

C 22/2003 2.3.2005 CR22/03 – Reform of training institutions OJ L 81, 18.3.2006

C 70/2003 22.6.2005 Measures in favour of sports clubs Italy

C 18/2003 21.9.2005 Bolzano — ‘Criteria for implementing

Provincial Law No 4/97 — misuse of aid

N 192/97’



Poland


Portugal

C 33/2004 6.9.2005 Extension of three-year delivery limit for two

ships from Estaleiros Navais de Viana do Castelo

Slovenia

C 47/2004 23.11.2005 The reduction of burdening of the

environment with emissions of carbon dioxide

C 44/2004 23.11.2005 Modification of Case SI 1/03 (the reduction

of burdening of the environment with

emissions of carbon dioxide)

49


United Kingdom

C 17/2004 3.5.2005 Enterprise capital funds OJ C 91, 29.3.2006

7. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was compatible with

the common market under certain reservations and terminated proceedings

under Article 88(2) EC by way of a conditional final decision

Italy

C 35/2003 16.3.2005 Lazio — Aid for the reduction of greenhouse

gas emissions

Netherlands

C 43/2003 22.6.2005 CR43/03 – Aid in favour of AVR for treatment OJ L 84, 23.3.2006

of ‘C2’ hazardous waste

8. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was incompatible

with the common market and terminated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC

by way of a negative or partly negative decision

Finland

C 37/2004 20.10.2005 Alleged aid to Componenta Corporation to

move production to Finland

France



Germany

C 43/2001 2.3.2005 CR43/01 – Mesures financières de la BVS en OJ L 296, 12.11.2005

faveur de l'entreprise Chemische Werke

Piesteritz GmbH

C 5/2004 21.9.2005 Kronoply OJ L 94, 1.4.2006

C 25/2004 9.11.2005 DVB-T Berlin-Brandenburg

C 40/2004 23.11.2005 Real estate transfer tax exemption for housing

companies in the new Länder

Ireland



Italy

C 48/2003 19.1.2005 De Tomaso Cutro

C 22/2003 2.3.2005 CR22/03 – Reform of training institutions

C 8/2004 16.3.2005 Fiscal incentives to newly listed companies OJ L 94, 1.4.2006

C 28/2003 6.4.2005 Guarantees for ship financing

C 19/2004 6.9.2005 Tax incentives in favour of certain regulated

investment funds

C 18/2003 21.9.2005 Bolzano – Criteria for implementing

Provincial Law No 4/97 – misuse of aid N 192/97

50


C 32/2004 23.11.2005 Fincantieri – Extension of three-year delivery

limit for four cruise vessels



Netherlands

C 43/2003 22.6.2005 CR43/03 – Aid in favour of AVR for treatment

of ‘C2’ hazardous waste

Poland


Slovenia

SI 7/2003 2.2.2005 Slovenian electricity tariffs

9. Aid cases in which the Commission terminated proceedings under

Article 88(2) EC after the Member State withdrew the proposed measure

Belgium

C 31/2002 27.4.2005 Régime transitoire du marché de l'électricité OJ C 175, 15.7.2005

Germany

C 34/2004 26.1.2005 Restructuring aid for Metallindustriewerk

Staaken

C 4/2004 2.2.2005 Environment aid for Wagner OJ C 163, 5.7.2005

Ireland

N 256/2004 2.3.2005 Intel Ireland – MSF (2002)

10. Cases in which the Commission noted the Member State’s agreement to

ensuring the compliance of existing aid awards following the proposal of

appropriate measures under Article 88(1) EC

France

E 10/2005 20.4.2005 Redevance radiodiffusion – France OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

Italy

E 9/2005 20.4.2005 Capital increase and other measures – RAI OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

Spain

E 8/2005 20.4.2005 Spanish national public broadcaster RTVE

11. Decisions to seize the Court under the second indent of Article 88(2) EC

Germany

CR 62/2000 16.2.2005 Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (Kahla/Thüringen)

Italy

CR 27/1999 19.1.2005 Tax exemption and privileged loans in favour

of utilities with majority public shareholding

51


CR 62/2003 6.4.2005 Urgent measures in support of employment

Spain

CR 60/2000 21.12.2005 Aides fiscales sous la forme de l'exemption de

l'impôt des sociétés pour certaines entreprises

nouvellement créées dans la province d'Alava







12. Other Commission decisions

France

C 13b/2003 19.1.2005 Taxe professionnelle – France Télécom OJ L 269, 14.10.2005

C 13b/2003 7.3.2005 Taxe professionnelle – France Télécom

N 330/2004 16.3.2005 Aides à l'emploi au secteur de la restauration

Germany

C 73/2002 19.1.2005 Landesbanken capital transfers:

Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen

N 41/2004 28.1.2005 Innovation support programme OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

(Niedersachsen)

N 213/2004 15.2.2005 ERDF risk capital fund Schleswig-Holstein OJ C 72, 24.3.2006

N 452/2004 2.3.2005 Innovation aid for shipbuilding OJ C 235, 23.9.2005

NN 77/2004 29.3.2005 Bavarian technology aid programme – OJ C 39, 16.2.2006

prolongation of aid scheme

N 549/2004 18.4.2005 Aid to innovative, technology oriented OJ C 226, 15.9.2005

joint projects in the field of technologies of

the future in Saxony

N 548/2004 24.6.2005 Aid to development of new or novel products OJ C 240, 30.9.2005

and methods in the free state of Saxony

N 56/2003 6.9.2005 Environment aid for Villeroy & Boch OJ C 305, 2.12.2005

Italy

C 55/2003 6.4.2005 CR55/03 – Crédits d'impôts aux

investissements dans des zones non éligibles

aux aides à finalité régionale

N 715/1999 27.4.2005 Loi 488/92 concernant des mesures en faveur

des activités de production dans les régions

défavorisées

Poland

N 81/2005 29.6.2005 Temporary defensive measures for shipbuilding


N 99/2005 23.11.2005 Stranded costs compensations in Poland

52


Portugal

C 30/2004 29.6.2005 Exemption from corporate tax for capital OJ C 256, 15.10.2005

gains of certain operations/transactions by

public undertakings

C 33/2004 9.11.2005 Extension of three-year delivery limit for

two ships from Estaleiros Navais de Viana

do Castelo

Spain

C 38/2003 1.6.2005 Capital injection to IZAR

C 40/2000 1.6.2005 Aids to shipbuilding – Further restructuring of

public yards in Spain

C 3/1999 1.6.2005 CR3/99 – Tax credits for public shipyards

United Kingdom

C 52/2003 16.2.2005 Aid in favour of British Energy plc OJ L 142, 6.6.2005

53


C – List of State aid cases in other sectors

1. In the agricultural sector

1.1. Measures which the Commission considered compatible with the common

market without opening a formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC

Decision Case OJ

Austria

N 361/2004 27.1.2005 Investment aid for the construction OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

of Fleischmarkt Inzersdorf (Wien)

N 70/2005 8.8.2005 Investment aid for irrigation facilities OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

(Steiermark)

N 70/2005 17.10.2005 Investment aid for irrigation facilities OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

(Steiermark)

N 520/2005 7.12.2005 Aid for the purchase of forage and forage

replacement products to agricultural

enterprises having sustained damage due to

exceptional weather conditions

N 564a/2004 26.12.2005 Directives on catastrophe aid OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

(Niederösterreich)

Belgium

N 9/2005 9.11.2005 Projet d'arrêté royal fixant les contributions OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

visées à l'article 4 de la loi du

9 décembre 2004. Financement de l'Agence

fédérale pour la sécurité de la chaîne

alimentaire (AFSCA)

N 10/2005 9.11.2005 Projet d'arrêté royal fixant les contributions OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

visées à l'article 4 de la loi du

9 décembre 2004. Financement de l'Agence

fédérale pour la sécurité de la chaîne

alimentaire (AFSCA)

Czech Republic

N 428a/2005 13.12.2005 Processing of agricultural products

N 378/2005 13.12.2005 Risk of spread of viral and bacterial OJ C 17, 24.1.2006

diseases in hops

Denmark

N 343/2004 19.1.2005 Tax on mineral phosphorous in OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

feed phosphates

N 47/2005 16.6.2005 Aid for counselling concerning OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

Natura 2000 forests

N 181/2005 1.7.2005 Aid for vaccination against OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

Newcastle disease

54


N 277/2005 8.8.2005 Financing of expenses paid by OJ C 261, 20.10.2005

slaughterhouses and processing plants in

relation to the monitoring of TSE among

bovine, ovine and caprine animals

N 391/2004 21.9.2005 Aid for preservation of endangered species OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

N 568/2004 23.11.2005 Compensation for losses due to the OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

presence of certain GMO material

N 215/2005 9.12.2005 Compensation for losses due to veterinary OJ C 37, 14.2.2006

measures against Newcastle disease

Finland

N 285/2004 9.2.2005 State aid for rural development OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

N 284/2004 16.3.2005 National aid to increase maximum average OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

amount of compensatory allowance

N 133/2005 3.5.2005 Aid to agricultural enterprises affected by OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

adverse weather conditions in 2004

N 272/2005 23.11.2005 Commission decision approving a request OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

made by the Republic of Finland to amend

the aid programme approved with the

Commission decision of 16 March 2004

France

N 216/2004 11.1.2005 Aide à la réduction des effectifs animaux OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

en Bretagne

N 332/2004 11.1.2005 Restructuration du verger de pommes OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

de cidre

N 515b/2003 16.2.2005 Aide en faveur des bouchers artisans OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

(taxe d'abattage)

N 86/2005 6.4.2005 Aides en faveur de la traçabilité et de OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

l'amélioration de la qualité dans le

secteur des céréales

N 160/2004 12.4.2005 Aides aux exploitations agricoles victimes OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

des inondations de décembre 2003

N 52/2005 25.4.2005 Aide à la remise en culture de parcelles boisées OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

N 87a/2005 25.4.2005 Aides en faveur des investissements matériels OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

vinicoles collectifs (Loire-Atlantique)

N 71/2005 25.4.2005 Aides à la reconstitution des prairies OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

endommagées par la sécheresse

exceptionnelle de l'été 2003

N 554/2004 23.5.2005 Aides en faveur des systèmes de manutention OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

et d'expéditiion des céréales, oléagineux et

protéagineux par la voie d'eau

N 422/2004 3.6.2005 Aides aux installations de traitement des OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

effluents d'élevage dans les zones

d'excédent naturel

N 124/2005 1.7.2005 Aides dans le domaine de la recherche et du OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

développement du secteur des céréales

octroyées par l'ONIC

55


N 120/2005 20.7.2005 Aides en faveur de la protection par des OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

clôtures des élevages de porcs en plein air

N 137/2005 19.8.2005 Aides du Conseil Général des OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

Yvelines à l'agriculture

N 320/2005 25.8.2005 Aides de la région d'Île de France en faveur OJ C 265, 26.10.2005

du maintien de l'agriculture biologique

NN 40/2004 6.9.2005 Aides en faveur des groupements de OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

producteurs de bananes

(Guadeloupe et Martinique)

N 245/2005 21.9.2005 Restructuration verger des pommes à cidre OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

N 415/2005 17.10.2005 Aide régionale à l'aménagement des OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

bâtiments d'élevage des bovins,

ovins et caprins (Champagne-Ardenne)

NN 44/2002 9.11.2005 Aides en faveur du financement des déchets OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

animaux – Farines animales

N 87b/2005 18.11.2005 Aides à l'arrachage dans le secteur viticole OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

(Loire-Atlantique)

N 560/2005 9.12.2005 Aide à l'acquisition de géniteurs bovins OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

de haute valeur génétique

NN 75a/2005 22.12.2005 Soutien aux exploitants en difficulté – OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

Assistance technique

Germany

N 558/2004 27.1.2005 Aid for the costs of BSE tests (Sachsen) OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

N 440/2004 27.1.2005 Research and development aid for the OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

vegetative reproduction of the

Nordmanns fir (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

N 13/2005 14.2.2005 Framework plan for joint task OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

‘Improving agricultural structures and

coastal protection’ for the period 2005-2008;

extension until the year 2008

N 515/2004 24.2.2005 Promotion measures for organic products OJ C 133, 31.5.2005

N 12/2005 15.3.2005 Framework plan for joint task ‘Improving OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

agricultural structures and coastal protection’

for the period 2005-2008; amendment 2005:

promotion and stability of forests

N 314/2004 27.4.2005 Agri-Marketing Treaty (Hessen) OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

N 339/2004 11.5.2005 Compensation in Natura 2000 forest areas OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

N 275/2004 3.6.2005 Quality label ‘Geprüfte Qualität’ (Bayern) OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

N 267/2004 7.6.2005 Investment aid for the establishment of a OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

bioethanol plant (Sachsen-Anhalt)

N 142c/2004 16.6.2005 Investment Premium Act 2005 OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

N 153/2004 1.7.2005 Investment aid to Edeka Nord GmbH for the OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

construction of a meat factory

(Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)

N 620/2003 1.7.2005 Aid for transporting and destroying fallen OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

stock (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

56


NN 60/2004 29.7.2005 Special programme for implementing OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

additional BSE tests for slaughter cattle

(Hessen)

N 55/2004 4.8.2005 Agri-environmental measures for OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

the Lübecker Bucht area

N 363/2004 6.9.2005 Aid for the construction of a whey refining OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

plant (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)

N 452/2005 18.10.2005 On-the-spot-payments to compensate for OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

damages caused by the flood of August 2005

to holdings in the agriculture, forestry and

fishery sector (Bayern)

N 383/2005 17.11.2005 Setting up a computerised information OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

system for horticulture

N 466a/2005 8.12.2005 Hardship fund – Flood 2005 (Bayern) OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

Greece

N 111/2004 25.4.2005 Programme FAR. Mesures en faveur des OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

agriculteurs dont les exploitations ont été

touchées par des calamités, des conditions

climatiques défavorables

N 123/2004 27.4.2005 Projet d'arrêté interministériel portant OJ C 134, 1.6.2005

approbation du règlement concernant

les aides d'État de l'ELGA

N 456/2005 13.10.2005 AIdes en faveur des producteurs grecs dont OJ C 310, 8.12.2005

les exploitations ont été touchées par des

conditions climatiques défavorables

(gel, neige et vent)

Ireland

N 525/2005 22.12.2005 Aid for development of the potato sector OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

Italy

N 26a/2004 11.1.2005 Implementing rules for Article 7 of OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

Regional Law 11/2003 (Friuli-Venezia Giulia)

N 447/2004 9.2.2005 Interventions dans les zones agricoles OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

endommagées (grêle du mois de mai 2004,

provinces de Asti et Alessandria) (Piemonte)


touchées par des calamités naturelles

(pluies et tourbillon de vent du

26 novembre 2003) (Puglia)

N 348/2004 14.2.2005 Indemnisation pour les pertes dues OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

au feu bactérien (Veneto)

N 120a/2004 14.2.2005 Loi régionals n. 15 du 29.12.2003 OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

concernant Interventions urgentes en

faveur de l'agriculture (Sardegna)

N 367/2004 24.2.2005 Plan pour la prévention et l'amélioration OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

des eaux du bassin de la lagune de Venezia

(Veneto)

57


N 483/2004 14.3.2005 Interventi di soccorso nelle aree agricole OJ C 134, 1.6.2005

danneggiate (Sicilia)



(sirocco dans la province de Syracuse au

cours de la période de mai à septembre 2003)

(Sicilia)

N 50/2005 22.3.2005 Contributions en faveur des agriculteurs qui OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

participent au plan de surveillance contre la

fièvre catarrhale des ovins (bluetongue)

(Toscana)

N 598/2004 12.4.2005 Reinsurance Fund OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

NN 41/2004 12.4.2005 Aides à l'abandon de la production laitière et OJ C 3, 6.1.2006

à la reconversion d'exploitations

N 384/2003 12.4.2005 Aid to favour the access of agricultural SMEs OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

to risk capital

N 65/2005 27.4.2005 Forestry measures (Lombardia) OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

N 462/2004 27.4.2005 Subsidised loans for land reparcelling (Marche) OJ C 134, 1.6.2005

N 557/2004 11.5.2005 Aid to Consorzi Fidi in the agriculture sector OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

(Basilicata)

N 335a/2004 23.5.2005 Amélioration du patrimoine zootechnique OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

(Veneto)

N 83a/2005 3.6.2005 Régime de garanties avec élément d'aide OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

pour les sociétés agricoles et les exploitants

agricoles professionnels (Lombardia)

NN 54a/2004 7.6.2005 Aides aux catastrophes naturelles OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

N 210/2005 16.6.2005 Interventions de soutien des élevages OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

concernés par les mesures de police

vétérinaire d'abattage obligatoire prises à la

suite de latuberculose bovine (Lombardia)


touchées par des calamités naturelles (vents

violents et tornade dans la province de

Trapani du 16 et 17 avril 2004) (Sicilia)

N 199/2005 20.7.2005 Loi régionale n. 59/2004 ‘Dispositions OJ C 261, 20.10.2005

concernant les IGP et AOP’ (Valle d'Aosta)

N 115/2005 20.7.2005 Marchesi Antinori – Contrat de programme OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

N 43/2005 20.7.2005 Travaux d'amélioration foncière d'importance OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

secondaire (Lombardia)

N 510/2004 20.7.2005 Aides à la certification et traçabilité des OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

produits agricoles de qualité (Veneto)

N 508/2004 20.7.2005 Aides aux investissements dans le secteur OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

agricole dans les exloitations agricoles (Veneto)



(grêle du 20 juin 2004, province de Trieste)

(Friuli-Venezia Giulia)

NN 67/2004 20.7.2005 Preservation of land integrity – OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

Legislative Decree No 99/2004

58


NN 64/2004 20.7.2005 Aides destinées à compenser des pertes dues OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

à des conditions climatiques défavorables

(Molise)



(Valle d'Aosta)

N 824c/2000 20.7.2005 Article 100 de la loi 388/2000. Mesures OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

compensatoires adressées aux élevages

touchés par la bluetongue et l'influenza

aviaire en 2001


endommagées (grêle du mois de juin 2004,

provinces de Torino, Asti, Alessandria et

Cuneo) (Piemonte)



(pluies dans la province de Brindici au cours

de la période de mars à juin 2004) (Puglia)



(trombe du 17 juin 2004 dans la province de

Enna) (Sicilia)



(grêle du 17 juin 2004 – dégâts dans le

vignoble) (Sicilia)



(excès de neige et pluies persistantes du

février à mars 2004, province de Rovigo,

Venise) (Veneto)



(pluies persistantes du 1 avril au 30 juin,

province de Bari) (Puglia)


endommagées (grêle du 30.5.2004)

(Calabria)

N 335b/2004 29.7.2005 Amélioration du patrimoine zootechnique – OJ C 207, 24.8.2005

article 67, par. a et b (Veneto)

N 278/2005 29.7.2005 Accord interprofessionnel campagne 2005 OJ C 261, 20.10.2005

pour les pommes de terre destinées à la

transformation industrielle et aide au stockage

privé de pommes de terre de consommation



(secousses sismiques dans la province de

Brescia au cours de novembre 2004)

(Lombardia)

59




(pluies du 6-12 décembre 2004) (Sardegna)



(chutes de grêle au mois de juin 2004

dans les provinces d'Alessandria, Cuneo

et Turin) (Piemonte)



(grêle et pluies diluviennes du 20 juin 2004,

dans la province de Pavie) (Lombardia)



(grêle, trombe et pluies diluviennes du

17 juin 2004, dans les provinces de Catane

et de Trapani) (Sicilia)



(grêle du 1 au 25 septembre 2004 dans

les provinces de Naples et Benevento)

(Campania)



(grêle du 26 juillet 2004 – Brindici) (Puglia)



(vents de tempête dans la province de

Palerme en avril et mai 2004) (Sicilia)


endommagées (été 2003 et 2004, grêle

et tornade, provinces de Trieste, Pordenone

et Udine) (Friuli-Venezia Giulia)



(pluies du 29 octobre 2004 en province

de Grosseto) (Toscana)


endommagées (gelées été 2004,

provinces de Forli-Cesena, Piacenza,

Ravenna, Ferrara et Modena)

(Emilia-Romagna)


endommagées (grêle du 20 août 2004,

province de Bergamo) (Lombardia)



(trombe du 12 juillet dans la province

de Foggia) (Puglia)

60




(pluies diluviennes du 13 novembre au

20 décembre 2004 dans la province

de Foggia) (Puglia)



(pluies diluviennes des 13 et 14 novembre

2004 de Campobasso) (Molise)



(pluies du 24 novembre 2004 dans la

province de Bari) (Puglia)



(pluies du 26-28 décembre 2004 et tourbillon

de vent du 27 décembre 2004) (Campania)



(chutes de grêle du 11 octobre 2004 dans les

provinces d'Imperia et de Savone) (Liguria)


touchées par des calamités naturelles (grêle

du 2 juin 2004 et 25 juillet 2004) (Puglia)



(grêle du 3 septembre 2004) (Campania)



(grêle du 17-18-19 juin 2004) (Calabria)


endommagées (gelées du 23 au 25 mai

2004, province de Pordenone)




(trombe du 9 décembre 2004 dans la

province de Rageuse) (Sicilia)



(chutes de neige du 25 janvier au 9 mars

2005, province de Teramo) (Abruzzo)



(grêle et pluies persistantes du 2 au

11 août 2004) (Piemonte)



(grêle du 20 août et 15-16 septembre 2004,

provinces de Torino et Vercelli) (Piemonte)

61



endommagées pluies torrentielles,

période 29 octobre au 1 novembre 2004,

province de Pordenone (Friuli-Venezia Giulia)


endommagées pluies, neige et tourbillon,

période 26 octobre au 20 novembre,

province de Udine (Friuli-Venezia Giulia)



(chutes de grêle du 13 septembre 2004

dans la province de Pérouse) (Umbria)


endommagées (pluies persistantes,

provinces de Bologna, Modena et Parma)

(Emilia-Romagna)


endommagées (grêle, provinces de Brescia

et Cremona) (Lombardia)


endommagées (grêle du 12 juillet 2004,

province de Imperia) (Liguria)

N 325/2005 12.8.2005 Aide à la coopérative Garzason-Tisens OJ C 278, 11.11.2005

pour les pertes dues aux conditions

atmosphériques défavorables

(grêle du 6 juillet 2004) (Bolzano-Bozen)


endommagées (pluies torrentielles, période

11 juillet au 4 août 2004, province de

Ascoli Piceno) (Marche)


endommagées (grêle du 19 et 20 juin 2004,

provinces de Udine et Pordenone)



endommagées (grêle avril-mai 2004)

(Emilia-Romagna)


endommagées (grêle et vents du 26.8.2004,

province de Campobasso) (Molise)

N 29/2004 12.8.2005 Fonds de garantie pour l'agriculture (Calabria) OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

N 391/2003 12.8.2005 Fond de garantie pour l'agriculture (Calabria) OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

N 22/2005 19.8.2005 Mesures dans le secteur des châtaigniers OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

(Piemonte)

N 390/2003 24.8.2005 Aide aux investissements pour les attestations OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

de qualité (Calabria)

NN 50/2003 24.8.2005 Aide à l'apiculture (Umbria) OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

N 326/2005 30.8.2005 Interventions en faveur de la promotion et OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

de la valorisation des productions latières

(Veneto)

62


N 482/2004 30.8.2005 Interventions en soutien des systèmes de OJ C 263, 22.10.2005

certification de la qualité et de la traçabilité

des productions agricoles et agroalimentaires

(Marche)

N 381/2005 31.8.2005 Regional Law 5/2005, Article 9: Aid for the OJ C 278, 11.11.2005

improvement of agricultural production

(Veneto)

N 211/2005 6.9.2005 Mesures de protection du partrimoine OJ C 278, 11.11.2005

zootecnique attaqué par les prédateurs

(Toscana)


touchèes par des calamités naturelles

(pluies diluviennes au cours de la période

du 13 novembre 2004 au 5 mars 2005

(Foggia) (Puglia)


touchées par des calamités naturelles.

Pluies diluviennes (d'Agrigente) (Sicilia)



(pluies diluviennes du 6 au 8 septembre

2004 dans certaines communes

(Caltanissetta)) (Sicilia)

N 303/2004 14.9.2005 Aides au remembrement et à l'augmentation OJ C 278, 11.11.2005

de surfaces des exploitations (Veneto)

NN 168a/2003 14.9.2005 Aide en faveur du secteur agricole touché OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

par des conditions climatiques défavorables

et par des problèmes de dioxine (Campania)

N 170/2005 21.9.2005 Progetto Conserve Italia Scarl – OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

Sviluppo Italia SpA – Intervento a

condizioni di mercato



(vents violents dans la province de Gêne

du 10 et 11 avril 2005) (Liguria)



(pluies diluviennes et vents de tempête,

24 mai 2005 (Matera)) (Basilicata)



(tornade dans la province de Ragusa du

27 janvier 2005) (Sicilia)



(tornade dans la province de Ragusa du

3 et 12 novembre 2004) (Sicilia)


endommagées (grêle et vents violents du

20 juin 2004, province de Mantova) (Lombardia)

63




(forts vents du 10 et 11 avril 2005)


endommagées (grêle, pluies torrentielles,

tornades, vents violents février-septembre

2004, Venise, Padoue, Vicence, Verone Treviso)

(Veneto)



(grêle du 11 et 12 juillet 2004, province de

Chieti) (Abruzzo)

N 440/2005 14.10.2005 Calamités naturelles (excès de neige dans les OJ C 310, 8.12.2005

provinces de Pesaro, Urbino, Marcerata, Fermo

et Ascoli Piceno, 23 janvier au 4 mars 2005)

(Marche)


touchées par des calamités naturelles (pluies

alluviales dans la province de Cagliari le 3, le

4 et le 5 avril 2005) (Sardegna)


endommagées (gelées du 16 février et 3 mars

2005, Imperia) (Liguria)

N 308/2004 14.10.2005 Amendments to Law No 20 of 27 November OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

2003 ‘Interventions in favour of livestock

farmers taking part in the bluetongue

vaccination plan’ (Umbria)

N 259/2005 17.10.2005 Arrêté ministeriel du 24 mars 2005 portant OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

répartition des ressources affectées aux

activités indiquées à l’article 4 de la loi n° 499

du 23 décembre 1999

N 49/2005 17.10.2005 Aid scheme for the valorisation, development OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

and improvement of agri-food chains

with lower environmental impact (Toscana)

N 532/2003 17.10.2005 Actions publicitaires pour le secteur OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

agroalimentaire dans les pays de l'Union

européenne et de l'élargissement

N 327/2005 18.10.2005 Projet de loi régionale nr 125 Système intégré OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

de services de développement agricole et

rural (SISSAR)

N 45/2005 20.10.2005 Measures to ensure food quality and the OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

adoption of a quality label ‘Quality with

indication of origin’ (Bolzano-Bozen)

NN 31/2004 28.10.2005 Aid for collection and disposal of fallen OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

stock (Marche)

N 307/2003 18.11.2005 Aides en faveur de la coopération agricole OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

(Molise)


touchées par des calamités naturelles (pluies

persistantes dans la province de Siracusa du

3 novembre au 31 décembre 2004) (Sicilia)

64



touchées par des calamités naturelles (grêles

et tornades – province de Udine, 4 juin 2005)


N 321/2005 25.11.2005 Service de développement agricole (Liguria) OJ C 17, 24.1.2006

N 135/2004 8.12.2005 Projet ‘Fontina Qualità’ (Valle d'Aosta) OJ C 57, 9.3.2006


touchées par des calamités naturelles (fortes

chutes de neige en janvier, province

d'Agrigente) (Sicilia)



(gelées du 25 janvier au 9 mars 2005,

province d'Agrigente) (Sicilia)


endommagées (pluies torrentielles du 12

et 13 novembre 2004, tourbillon du

14 novembre 2004, province de Matera)

(Basilicata)


touchées par des calamités naturelles (excès

de neige dans la province de Cosenza;

vents violents, Cosenza et Reggio) (Calabria)



(grêle du 29 juin 2005, province d'Udine)


N 472/2004 15.12.2005 Aides destinées à indemniser les zones OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

agricoles endomagées par des conditions

météorologiques défavorables (grêle du

8 août 2004, province de Chieti) (Abruzzo)



(vents violents du 2 août 2005, province de

Cremona) (Lombardia)

N 517/2005 20.12.2005 Compensation for drought damage in OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

agricultural areas in 2005 (Bolzano)

N 200/2005 20.12.2005 Aid for the disposal of specified risk material OJ C 37, 14.2.2006

(Trento)



(pluies diluviennes et vents violents,

12-14 décembre 2003) (Calabria)

Latvia

N 94/2005 14.9.2005 Purchase of breeding materials abroad OJ C 265, 26.10.2005

N 96/2005 21.9.2005 Evaluation of varieties of cultivated plants OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

in biological agriculture

N 566/2004 21.9./2005 Improvement of agricultural land OJ C 310, 8.12.2005

65


N 429/2005 28.10.2005 Support to stabilisation of sustainable forest OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

functions in private forests for 2005

N 97/2005 15.12.2005 Aid for reconstruction of the water OJ C 37, 1.2.2006

reclamation system

Lithuania

N 448/2004 27.1.2005 Damage caused by natural disasters and OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

extreme events in the agricultural sector

N 292/2005 10.8.2005 Aid for reimbursement of insurance premiums OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

Luxembourg

N 205e/2004 23.5.2005 Régime d'aide spécial à la sécurité alimentaire OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

Netherlands

N 372/2003 16.3.2005 Aides à la floriculture OJ C 133, 31.5.2005

N 98/2005 27.4.2005 Fonds pour l'encouragement du OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

redéploiement d'exploitations

N 309/2004 3.6.2005 Application of a parafiscal tax for research and OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

development and prevention of diseases in

the goat milk sector

N 358/2003 16.6.2005 Introduction of Braeburn apples in Flevoland OJ C 214, 1.9.2005

N 246/2005 1.7.2005 Système des chances uniques et des projets OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

de démonstration

N 516/2003 29.7.2005 School fruit project, Flevoland OJ C 263, 22.10.2005

N 102/2005 4.8.2005 Compensation for avian influenza OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

N 128/2005 10.8.2005 Des races animales menacées d'extinction OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

N 30/2005 19.8.2005 Agro & Co. Capital Fund OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

N 491/2005 7.12.2005 Reconstruction du secteur de la serriculture OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

(Noord Brabant)

N 605/2004 7.12.2005 Compensation for crop loss, 2002 OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

N 352/2004 7.12.2005 Increase of maximum amount for parafiscal OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

taxes for the financing of measures for

research and development, prevention of

diseases and promotion in the poultry and

eggs sector

N 138/2002 7.12.2005 Subsidy for the production of OJ C 17, 24.1.2006

salmonella-free chicken meat

N 301/2005 8.12.2005 Programme gestion, changement de fonction OJ C 17, 24.1.2006

Portugal

N 559/2004 20.7.2005 Compensation des dégâts causés par la grêle OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

dans les communes de Murça et Mirandela

N 375/2005 14.10.2005 Compensation des dégâts causés par la OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

sécheresse – Ligne de crédit pour les

producteurs de pomme de terre et d'agrumes

66


Spain

N 520/2004 25.2.2005 Aides pour l'amélioration du programme OJ C 133, 31.5.2005

sanitaire des groupements de défence

sanitaire (Castilla y León)

N 481/2004 25.2.2005 Programme national de sélection génétique OJ C 133, 31.5.2005

pour la résistance aux encéphalopathies

spongiformes transmisibles en ovin

N 102/2004 22.3.2005 Aides pour pallier les pertes provoquées par OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

la sécheresse en 2003 (Cantabria)

N 119/2005 27.4.2005 Aides pour l'élimination des carcasses OJ C 142, 11.6.2005

antérieures et postérieures dans la chaîne

d'abattage à celle qui résulte positif par ESB

(Cantabria)

N 79/2005 27.4.2005 Aides pour la rénovation des tracteurs OJ C 134, 1.6.2005

N 163a/2005 3.6.2005 Aides à l'assistance technique dans le secteur OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

de la transformation et la commercialisation

des produits agricoles, sylvicoles, de la pêche

et alimentaires

N 80/2005 16.6.2005 Mesures phyto-sanitaires pour le contrôle OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

de la mouche blanche (Navarra)

N 210/2004 1.7.2005 Aides pour actions de promotion destinées OJ C 261, 20.10.2005

à favoriser la connaissance et la

consommation de produits alimentaires

N 161/2005 17.10.2005 Aide pour compenser les pertes causées par OJ C 308, 6.12.2005

les circonstances atmosphériques

défavorables (la province de Ciudad Real et

dans les Communautés autonomes)

(Extremadura et Canarias)

N 296/2005 28.10.2005 Aides à l'assainissement de la production OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

de raisins de table

N 48/2005 18.11.2005 Aides destinées à réparer les dommages OJ C 1, 4.1.2006

causés par les inondations (Navarra)

N 490/2005 6.12.2005 Aides à l'introduction des plans de gestion OJ C 17, 24.1.2006

des déjections de l'élevage (Cataluna)

N 171/2005 8.12.2005 Aide à la formation et au transfert OJ C 17, 24.1.2006

technologique dans le secteur

agroalimentaire (Murcia)

N 239/2005 9.12.2005 Aides aux activités de promotion par les OJ C 17, 24.1.2006

conseils régulateurs et associations

‘Vin de qualité’ pour le développement de

programmes volontaires d'information sur la

qualité alimentaire

N 521/2005 15.12.2005 Mesures d'intervention dans le marché de la OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

pommes de terre (Castilla y León)

N 400/2005 15.12.2005 Aides en faveur des associations agricoles OJ C 37, 14.2.2006

d'envergure nationale

N 276/2005 15.12.2005 Aid for the constitution and the consolidation OJ C 37, 14.2.2006

of organisations of agricultural and

food products

67


N 431/2005 16.12.2005 Mesures de soutien aux PME actives dans OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

la transformation et la commercialisation

de produits agricoles (Murcia)

Sweden

N 593/2004 11.5.2005 Aid for the development of ecological farming OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

N 167/2005 3.6.2005 Investment aid for planting multiannual crops OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

N 562/2004 16.6.2005 Aid for the costs of transporting fallen stock OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

N 310/2005 7.12.2005 Aid in the agricultural sector – OJ C 37, 14.2.2006

Storm on 8 and 9 January 2005

United Kingdom

N 547/2004 11.1.2005 Extension to the Meat Quality OJ C 208, 25.8.2005

Advertising Scheme (Wales)

N 546/2004 11.1.2005 Extension to the Meat Generic OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

Advertising Scheme (Wales)

N 35/2005 15.3.2005 Extension to Northern Ireland Beef OJ C 131, 28.5.2005

Quality Initiative (Northern Ireland)

N 545/2003 27.4.2005 Northern Ireland Weather Aid (2002) Scheme OJ C 153, 24.6.2005

N 103/2005 3.6.2005 Amendment to the Farm Nutrient OJ C 190, 4.8.2005

Management Scheme (Northern Ireland)

N 406/2004 20.7.2005 England Rural Development Programme OJ C 258, 18.10.2005

(Environmental Stewardship)

N 190/2004 20.7.2005 The National Non-Food Crops Centre OJ C 261, 20.10.2005

NN 28/2004 20.7.2005 Climate change levy rebate OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

(pigs and poultry sector)

NN 27/2004 20.7.2005 Climate change levey relief OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

(food and drink processing)

NN 12/2004 20.7.2005 Horticulture – Climate change level OJ C 262, 21.10.2005

N 290/2005 11.8.2005 Lamb Promoting Scheme (Northern Ireland) OJ C 261, 20.10.2005

NN 17/2004 29.9.2005 BSE testing of cattle slaughtered for human OJ C 310, 8.12.2005

consumption aged over 30 months

NN 6/2004 29.9.2005 BSE testing of 30-42 months Beef Assurance OJ C 310, 8.12.2005

Scheme cattle and casualties aged

24-30 months slaughtered for human

consumption

N 439/2005 17.10.2005 Extension to the Scottish farm business OJ C 310, 8.12.2005

advice and skills service (Scotland)

NN 48/2005 17.10.2005 Organic farming scheme (Northern Ireland) OJ C 310, 8.12.2005

N 508/2005 17.11.2005 Amendment of Agricultural Development OJ C 2, 5.1.2006

Scheme

N 222/2005 7.12.2005 Beef Market Restoration Programme OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

(England and Northern Ireland)

N 516/2005 8.12.2005 Extension to the Red Meat Industry Forum

Scheme

N 585/2005 22.12.2005 Meat Quality Advertising Scheme extension OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

(Wales)

68


N 584/2005 22.12.2005 Meat Generic Advertising Scheme extension OJ C 57, 9.3.2006

(Wales)

1.2. Aid cases in which the Commission initiated proceedings under


France

NN 8/2004 5.7.2005 Aides dans le secteur de l'équarrissage en 2003

NN 57/2005 20.7.2005 Plans de campagne dans le secteur des fruits OJ C 233, 22.9.2005

(C 29/2005) et légumes

Germany

NN 36/2005 20.10.2005 Tax reductions for agricultural diesel and OJ C 67, 18.3.2006

(C 39/2005) glasshouses

Greece

NN 70/2004 7.6.2005 Aides aux entreprises des départements OJ C 176, 16.7.2005

(C 20/2005) de Florina et de Kilkis

NN 20/2005 21.12.2005 Renégociation des dettes coûteuses dans les OJ C 63, 16.3.2006

(C 50/2005) départements de Rhodope, Evros, Xanthi, du

Dodécannèse et des îles de Lesbos, Samos et

Chios

Italy

NN 71/2004 19.1.2005 Exonération d'accises sur les carburants OJ C 101, 27.4.2005

(C 5/2005) agricoles

NN 79/2004 2.2.2005 Serious market crisis and urgent interventions

in favour of the agriculture sector

NN 69/2004 20.7.2005 Aide à l'achat de fourrage OJ C 233, 22.9.2005

(C 27/2005) (Friuli-Venezia Giulia)

N 580b/2003 20.7.2005 Interventions en faveur de l'agrumiculture OJ C 256, 15.10.2005

(C 26/2005) italienne – lutte contre la tristeza des agrumes

Netherlands

N 149/2004 3.5.2005 Subsidy for a malt house OJ C 154, 25.6.2005

(C 14/2005)

Spain

N 561/2004 21.12.2005 Aides à l'investissement pour une malterie

(Maltacarrión SA) (Castilla y León)

69


1.3. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was compatible with

the common market and terminated proceedings under Article 88(2) EC by

way of a positive final decision

France

C 15/2004 9.11.2005 Aides au secteur des producteurs et négociants

de vins de liqueur: Pineau des Charentais,

Floc de Gascogne, Pommeau de Normandie

et Macvin du Jura

Italy

C 65b/2001 20.1.2005 Interventions d'urgence dans le secteur

agricole (Sicilia)

C 7b/2000 5.7.2005 Articles 4 and 5 of Law No 290 of

17 August 1999, Article 15, paragraph 16, of

Law No 67 of 11 March 1988 and Law No 252

of 8 August 1991

C 26/2005 21.12.2005 Interventions en faveur de l'agrumiculture

italienne – lutte contre la tristeza des agrumes

1.4. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was incompatible with


way of a negative or partly negative decision

France

C 6/2003 19.1.2005 Taxes parafiscales CIVDN

Germany

C 32/1999 20.7.2005 Garantie de prêts pour une entreprise dans OJ L 335, 21.12.2005

le secteur de transformation de la viande

(Thüringen)

Italy

C 50/2000 5.7.2005 Protection de la Bergamote et de ses OJ L 85, 23.3.2006

dérivés (Calabria)

1.5. Aid cases in which the Commission terminated proceedings under Article

88(2) EC after the Member State withdrew the proposed measure

Italy

C 6/2005 27.4.2005 Serious market crisis and urgent interventions

in favour of the agriculture sector

1.6. Other Commission decisions

France

N 294/2004 9.2.2005 Aides à la régénération des prairies (Moselle) OJ C 105, 30.4.2005

70


2. In the fisheries sector


market without opening a formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC

Czech Republic

CZ 84/2004 7.3.2005 Aid to non-productive functions of ponds

CZ 85/2004 7.3.2005 Aid to genetic resources – fishes

Denmark

N 579/2004 5.8.2005 Compensation scheme for salmon fishermen

N 318b/2004 6.9.2005 Taxation of individual transferable herring OJ C 275, 8.11.2005

quotas

Finland

N 638/2003 24.5.2005 Finnvera plc's loan and guarantee scheme

to fisheries

Ireland

NN 38/2005 29.6.2005 Salmon farming industry in Ireland

NN 39/2005 29.6.2005 Mismanagement of the salmon farming

industry

Italy

N 395a/2003 21.3.2005 Azioni III.3.1 Potenziamento della pescal

profesionale e dell'aquacoltura

NN 81/2002 21.4.2005 Indemnisation des pêcheurs et autres

opérateurs de la pêche

N 7/2004 22.4.2005 Intervention en faveur de la pêche (Toscana) OJ C 177, 19.7.2005

N 6/2005 12.5.2005 Indemnisation des mytiliculteurs suite à OJ C 183, 26.7.2005

l'événement climatique exceptionnel de

l'été 2003

N 286/2005 2.8.2005 Modification of aid scheme N6/2004 –

Modernisation of fishing vessels for the

purpose of safety

N 278/2004 30.8.2005 Special intervention to support fish

enterprises and fishermen fishing for

bivalve molluscs

N 593/2003 21.9.2005 Interventions in the veterinary and

sanitary sector

N 26b/2004 19.12.2005 Implementing rules for Article 7 of Regional

Law 11/2003 (Friuli-Venezia Giulia)

Latvia

N 177/2005 17.10.2005 Aid to fisheries sector – OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

Damages caused by storm

71


Netherlands

N 251/2005 28.7.2005 Aide à la réduction des capacités de pêche

dans la IJsselmeer

N 182/2005 12.10.2005 Financiering onderzoekfonds aanvoersector

N 183/2005 17.10.2005 Fonds voor vispromotie

N 462/2005 18.11.2005 Aide à la démolition des navires de pêche

dans la province de Flevoland

United Kingdom

N 285/2005 14.9.2005 National Fallen Stock Scheme (Fallen Fish)



Italy

N 263b/2001 2.3.2005 Aides au premier emploi à la pêche OJ C 100, 26.4.2005

2.3. Cases in which the Commission considered that the aid was incompatible with


way of a negative or partly negative decision

United Kingdom

C 13/2005 7.12.2005 Shetland Sea Fish Limited OJ L 81, 18.3.2006

2.4. Aid cases in which the Commission terminated proceedings under

Article 88(2) EC after the Member State withdrew the proposed measure

France

C 28/2004 4.10.2005 Aides aux organisations de producteurs

3. In the transport sector

3.1. Cases in which the Commission found, without opening a formal investigation,

that there was no aid element within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC

Czech Republic

N 400/2004 19.1.2005 Contribution to mitigate the consequences OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

of the reorganisation of the Czech railways

(Čské Dráhy and Spravá železniční

dopravní cesty)

72



market without opening a formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC or

Article 6(5) of Decision 2496/96/ECSC

Belgium

N 247/2004 16.3.2005 Aides au transport combiné dans la OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

Région wallonne

N 355/2004 20.4.2005 PPP project for Antwerp International Airport OJ C 176, 16.7.2005

N 249/2004 5.7.2005 Projet d'aide au transport combiné OJ C 280, 12.11.2005

N 55/2005 7.12.2005 Notification de certains accords conclus entre

la SNCB et safiliale IFB (cas existant NN9/04)

Cyprus

N 69/2005 3.5.2005 Cyprus Airways — Rescue aid OJ C 191, 5.8.2005

Czech Republic

N 323/2004 3.5.2005 Guarantee for financing the purchase of OJ C 83, 6.4.2006

railway rolling stock

N 63/2005 20.7.2005 Programme for energy economics and OJ C 83, 6.4.2006

use of alternative fuels in the transport sector

CZ 45/2004 20.10.2005 Liquidation of results of mining for OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

years 2003-2007

France

N 321/2004 19.1.2005 State aid to the coal industry to cover the

costs of closure for the year 2004

N 386/2004 2.3.2005 Aid for restructuring SNCF Freight OJ C 172, 12.7.2005

C 58/2002 16.3.2005 Aide à la restructuration de la SNCM OJ C 16, 21.1.2006

NN 25/2005 20.4.2005 Aides sociales passeport mobilité OJ C 137, 4.6.2005

N 516/2004 20.4.2005 Aides sociales relatif à la desserte aérienne OJ C 138, 7.6.2005

entre la Martinique et la métropole

NN 52/2003 3.5.2005 Aviation – Aides sociales Corse – OJ C 176, 16.7.2005

Lyon, Marseille, Nice, Montpellier

N 607/2004 20.7.2005 Aides au profit de certaines categories de OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

passagers des liaisons aeriennes régulières

entre la Réunion et la métropole

N 134/2005 9.11.2005 Modification du régime d'aides N353/2001 OJ C 89, 12.4.2006

de I'ADEME dans le domaine du transport

Germany

N 497/2004 19.1.2005 Meldung staatlicher Beihilfen zugunsten des

Steinkohlebergbaus fur das Jahr 2005

N 644i/2002 19.1.2005 Construction or development OJ C 126, 25.5.2005

of regional airports

N 238/2004 16.3.2005 Aid scheme for the funding of new OJ C 136, 3.6.2005

combined transport traffic

73


NN 85/2004 20.4.2005 German coal industry 2005 + OJ C 172, 12.7.2005

NN aids 2001-2002

N 320/2004 22.6.2005 Restructuring plan of the German coal OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

industry 2004

N 175b/2005 6.9.2005 Energy from renewable sources OJ C 75, 28.3.2006

Hungary

N 92/2005 22.6.2005 State aid to the coal industry OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

Ireland

N 311/2005 23.11.2005 Refund of social security contributions of

seafarers

Italy

N 496/2003 20.4.2005 Sviluppo delle catene logistiche e OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

potenziamento dell'intermodalita,

con particolare riferimento alle

‘autostrade del mare’

Netherlands

N 569/2004 7.6.2005 State aid for ETCS freight locomotives OJ C 83, 6.4.2006

N 213/2005 5.7.2005 Subsidieregeling dieselmotoren voor OJ C 79, 1.4.2006

binnenvaartschepen – aanmelding

Poland

N 571/2004 22.6.2005 State aid to the Polish coal sector OJ C 87, 11.4.2006

Slovakia

N 53/2005 16.3.2005 State aid to the coal sector OJ C 137, 4.6.2005

N 27/2005 16.3.2005 State aid to the coal sector in 2004 OJ C 137, 4.6.2005

N 168/2005 7.6.2005 State aid to the coal sector OJ C 228, 17.9.2005

N 419/2005 5.10.2005 State aid to the coal sector in 2005 OJ C 85, 8.4.2006

United Kingdom

N 159/2005 22.6.2005 EWSI Channel Tunnel freight support funding OJ C 314, 10.12.2005

N 503/2005 21.12.2005 Great Yarmouth outer harbour OJ C 83, 6.4.2006



Belgium

NN 9/2004 7.12.2005 Mesures de sauvetage en faveur de

‘Inter Ferry Boats’ (IFB)

74


Denmark

NN 127/2000 2.3.2005 Restructuring aid to COMBUS A/S (C 10/2005) OJ C 233, 22.9.2005

Italy

N 501/2004 19.1.2005 Alitalia: industrial restructuring plan (C 2/2005) OJ C 44, 19.2.2005

3.4. Aid cases in which the Commission extended proceedings under


Belgium

C 53/2003 3.5.2005 ABX restructuring OJ C 142, 11.6.2005



way of a positive final decision

Belgium

C 53/2003 7.12.2005 ABX restructuring

Italy

C 52/2002 21.12.2005 Disposizioni particolari per il settore del

trasporto (Provincia Autonoma di Trento)

Spain

C 14/2004 21.12.2005 Spanish coal – plan for accessing coal reserves

2003-2005


the common market under certain reservations and terminated proceedings

under Article 88(2) EC by way of a conditional final decision

Italy

C 2/2005 7.6.2005 Alitalia: industrial restructuring plan OJ L 69, 8.3.2006

3.7. Decisions to seize the Court under the second indent of Article 88(2) EC

Greece

C 11/2004 14.9.2005 Olympic Airways – Privatisation

3.8. Other Commission decisions

Italy



75


D – Judgments of the Community courts

1. Court of Justice

EC


C-379/03 Pérez Escolar v Commission 7.1.2005 OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

C-183/02 P, Demesa v Commission 8.1.2005 OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

C-187/02 P

C-186/02 P, Ramondín and Ramondín Cápsulas 8.1.2005 OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

C-188/02 P v Commission

C-73/03 Spain v Commission 8.1.2005 OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

C-174/02 Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant 13.1.2005 OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

C-175/02 F.J. Pape 13.1.2005 OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

C-172/03 Heiser 3.3.2005 OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

C-553/03 P_1 Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners 15.3.2005

and Exporters v Commission

C-504/03_1 Commission v France 4.4.2005

C-182/03_2, Belgium v Commission 28.4.2005

C-217/03_2

C-404/04 P-R_1 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau 29.4.2005

v Commission

C-400/99 Italy v Commission 10.5.2005 OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

C-415/03 Commission v Greece 12.5.2005 OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

C-110/03 Belgium v Commission 28.5.2005 OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

C-88/03_1 Portugal v Commission 9.6.2005

C-337/04_1 Commission v France 27.6.2005

C-71/04 Xunta de Galicia 21.7.2005 OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

C-553/03 P Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners 23.7.2005 OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

and Exporters v Commission

C-276/03 P Scott v Commission 6.10.2005 OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

C-266/04 to Nazairdis 27.10.2005 OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

C-270/04, C-276/04,

C-321/04 to

C-325/04

C-78/03 P Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft 13.12.2005

Recht und Eigentum

C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano 15.12.2005

C-66/02 Italy v Commission 15.12.2005

76



EC


T-93/02 Confédération nationale du Crédit 18.1.2005 OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

mutuel v Commission

T-176/01 Ferriere Nord v Commission 22.1.2005 OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

T-27/02 Kronofrance v Commission 5.2.2005 OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

T-316/04 Wam v Commission 5.2.2005 OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

T-289/03_1 BUPA and Others v Commission 4.3.2005

T-228/00_1 Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto di 10.3.2005

Venezia v Commission

T-265/00_1 Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ 10.3.2005

v Commission

T-141/03 Sniace v Commission 14.4.2005 OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

T-88/01 Sniace v Commission 14.4.2005 OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

T-111/01, Saxonia Edelmetalle v Commission 11.5.2005 OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

T-133/01

T-81/04 Bouygues and Bouygues 28.5.2005 OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

Telecom v Commission

T-17/02 Olsen v Commission 15.6.2005 OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna 15.6.2005 OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

v Commission

T-349/03 Corsica Ferries France v Commission 15.6.2005 OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

T-228/00 Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto 9.7.2005 OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

di Venezia v Commission

T-361/02 Deutsche Bahn v Commission 3.9.2005 OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

T-98/04 SIMSA and Others v Commission 17.9.2005 OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

T-321/04_1 Air Bourbon v Commission 19.9.2005 OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

T-258/99_1 Makro Cash & Carry 20.9.2005 OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

Nederland v Commission

T-318/00 Freistaat Thüringen v Commission 19.10.2005 OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

T-324/00 CDA Datenträger Albrechts 19.10.2005 OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

v Commission

T-343/03_1 Deutsche Post and Securicor Omega 16.11.2005

Express v Commission

T-426/04_1 Tramarin v Commission 21.11.2005

T-200/04 Regione autonoma della 14.12.2005

Sardegna v Commission

77


E – Press releases

IP/05/57 19.1.2005 European Commission wants confirmation on the recapitalisation of

Alitalia

IP/05/58 19.1.2005 Commission authorises German aid for the development of regional

airports

IP/05/63 19.1.2005 Commission opens formal investigation into UK property tax on

telecommunications

IP/05/64 19.1.2005 Commission opens inquiry into support measures for Polish car maker

FSO

IP/05/67 19.1.2005 European Commission authorises Germany to grant €2.7 billion to its

coal industry

IP/05/75 20.1.2005 Commission partly approves regional aid for De Tomaso Cutro in Italy

IP/05/76 20.1.2005 Commission refers Italy to the Court of Justice for failure to recover

illegal aid

IP/05/80 21.1.2005 Commission requests phasing out of tax benefits for exempt

companies in Gibraltar

IP/05/126 2.2.2005 Commission takes two decisions concerning Slovenian electricity

sector

IP/05/135 3.2.2005 Commission decides Dutch exemption from waste tax for dredging

sludge does not constitute State aid

IP/05/149 8.2.2005 Fair conditions of competition for regional airports:

Commission launches consultation

IP/05/188 16.2.2005 Commission agrees to innovation aid scheme for German shipbuilders

IP/05/189 16.2.2005 Commission refers Germany to Court of Justice for failure to recover

illegal aid to Kahla

IP/05/196 17.2.2005 Commission approves €33 million of public funding for an

R&D project by Philips Semiconductors, Caen

IP/05/201 18.2.2005 Commission welcomes phasing out of tax benefits for offshore

exempt companies in Gibraltar

IP/05/233 2.3.2005 The European Commission has decided to investigate the aid paid

to Combus

IP/05/243 2.3.2005 Commission calls on France to put an end to certain tax exemptions

for mutual and provident societies

IP/05/244 2.3.2005 Commission approves £10 million public funding for Ford training

project in UK

IP/05/245 2.3.2005 Commission orders recovery of €6.7 million of illegal aid to

Chemische Werke Piesteritz

IP/05/250 3.3.2005 Commission requests Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands to

clarify role and financing of public service broadcasters

IP/05/301 16.3.2005 Commission endorses €3.8 million in environmental aid to ACEA

Group in Italy, provided previous aid is recovered first

IP/05/302 16.3.2005 Commission endorses innovation aid for French and Spanish

shipbuilders

IP/05/303 16.3.2005 Commission endorses €18.5 million of aid to reduce mercury

emissions in Italy

78


IP/05/304 16.3.2005 Commission outlaws Italian tax breaks for companies listed for

the first time on EU stock exchanges

IP/05/310 16.3.2005 European Commission authorises Belgian aid programme promoting

combined transport in the Walloon Region

IP/05/312 16.3.2005 European Commission authorises German aid programme promoting

combined transport

IP/05/316 16.3.2005 Commission authorises Slovakia to grant €350 000 aid to mining

company Hornonitrianske Bane Prievidza a.s.

IP/05/344 21.3.2005 Commission opens in-depth inquiry into proposed subsidy for

Bavarian ethylene pipeline

IP/05/345 21.3.2005 Commission requests Portugal and Spain to fully implement

directive on financial transparency

IP/05/395 7.4.2005 Commission to take Italy to court for failure to recover unlawful

State aid

IP/05/396 7.4.2005 Commission prohibits Italian shipbuilding guarantee scheme

IP/05/398 7.4.2005 Commission endorses public funding for broadband communications

in rural and remote areas of Spain

IP/05/454 20.4.2005 Italy: Commission encourages transfer of goods from road to sea

IP/05/455 20.4.2005 Outermost regions: European Commission authorises social aid

for air passengers

IP/05/457 20.4.2005 Latest Scoreboard reveals shift in aid towards horizontal objectives

but no overall decrease in levels

IP/05/458 20.4.2005 Commission closes inquiries into French, Italian and Spanish public

broadcasters following commitments to amend funding systems

IP/05/465 21.4.2005 Commission endorses €1 million of aid for renovation of national

heritage site of Hala Ludowa in Wrocław, Poland

IP/05/521 3.5.2005 Rescue aid for Cyprus Airways

IP/05/523 3.5.2005 Air services to Corsica: Commission gives go-ahead for social aid

scheme

IP/05/525 3.5.2005 Aid for ABX Logistics: European Commission extends investigation

procedure

IP/05/529 3.5.2005 Commission endorses UK Enterprise Capital Funds for small business

IP/05/530 3.5.2005 Commission endorses public funding for broadband network in

Limousin, France

IP/05/531 3.5.2005 Commission endorses €15 billion public funding for new Dutch

health insurance system

IP/05/536 3.5.2005 Commission endorses German aid scheme for tenants of technology

centres and incubators

IP/05/644 1.6.2005 Restructuring of Polish shipyards under Commission scrutiny

IP/05/646 1.6.2005 Commission endorses public funding to bridge broadband

communications gap in Wales

IP/05/648 1.6.2005 Commission approves new French scheme of tax breaks for takeovers

of ailing industrial firms

IP/05/649 1.6.2005 Commission approves restructuring of Spanish public military

shipyards

IP/05/650 1.6.2005 Commission opens formal investigation into envisaged sale of the

Tote

79


IP/05/679 7.6.2005 Dutch aid to European Train Control System

IP/05/680 7.6.2005 Commission outlines comprehensive five-year reform of State aid

policy to promote growth, jobs and cohesion

IP/05/689 7.6.2005 Commission approves financing for the ‘Chaîne française

d’information internationale’ (CFII)

IP/05/691 8.6.2005 Commission endorses Northern Irish Language Broadcast Fund

IP/05/704 9.6.2005 Commission approves research and environmental aid of

€5.7 million to Solvay Soda in Germany

IP/05/770 22.6.2005 UK State aid for Channel Tunnel rail freight services

IP/05/771 22.6.2005 Commission endorses €47.3 million aid to AVR in the Netherlands

but orders recovery of €2.4 million

IP/05/777 22.6.2005 Commission closes State aid investigation into tax breaks for sports

clubs in Italy (the ‘Salvacalcio’ law)

IP/05/782 23.6.2005 Commission extends its formal investigation into the Italian

aeronautical law

IP/05/811 29.6.2005 Commission opens investigation into aid to Poczta Polska

IP/05/842 6.7.2005 Commission concludes no aid involved in restructuring of Polish

steel company Huta Czestochowa, but orders recovery of €4 million

restructuring aid

IP/05/843 5.7.2005 European Commission authorises Belgian scheme to assist combined

transport

IP/05/844 5.7.2005 Dutch aid to make inland waterway vessels more environmentally

friendly

IP/05/861 6.7.2005 Commission endorses €45 million of public funding for an

R&D project by BIAL in Portugal

IP/05/876 7.7.2005 Commission requests Sweden, Austria and the Czech Republic to

fully implement directive on financial transparency

IP/05/937 15.7.2005 Commission provides greater legal certainty for financing services

of general economic interest

IP/05/979 20.7.2005 Commission endorses cultural support schemes in Poland, Hungary

and Denmark

IP/05/980 20.7.2005 Air transport / Outermost regions: the Commission authorises a

French social aid scheme

IP/05/981 20.7.2005 Commission approves change of restructuring plan of steel

producer Mittal Steel Poland

IP/05/982 20.7.2005 Commission endorses Dutch guarantee scheme for financing

shipbuilding

IP/05/984 20.7.2005 Commission endorses €5 million aid for investment project in

Czech lignite mine

IP/05/985 20.7.2005 Commission proposes that France amend its measures in support

of civil service mutual societies

IP/05/986 20.7.2005 Commission gives green light to restructuring aid for Imprimerie

Nationale in France

IP/05/1044 5.8.2005 Commission opens probe into restructuring aid for Kliq in

the Netherlands

IP/05/1096 6.9.2005 Commission endorses €1.2 billion capital increases for German

Landesbanken HSH Nordbank and Bayern LB and transfer of public

fund as silent participation in Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen

80


IP/05/1102 7.9.2005 Commission opens inquiry into tax reductions in Sicily

IP/05/1103 7.9.2005 Commission opposes Italian tax breaks for certain investment vehicles

IP/05/1110 8.9.2005 Commission agrees delivery date extension for two tankers at

Portuguese yard

IP/05/1111 8.9.2005 Commission opens probe into restructuring aid for Ernault in France

IP/05/1139 14.9.2005 Commission finds that Greece has granted illegal State aid to

Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines

IP/05/1169 21.9.2005 Commission launches public consultation on measures to improve

State aid for innovation

IP/05/1191 27.9.2005 Application of Bolzano scheme deemed illegal, but new

implementing criteria approved

IP/05/1231 6.10.2005 Commission endorses public funding for broadband

communications in Midlands and South West of England

IP/05/1312 20.10.2005 Commission authorises Czech Republic to grant €74 million aid to

its coal industry

IP/05/1316 20.10.2005 Commission invites interested parties to comment on the

UK project ‘Investbx’

IP/05/1317 20.10.2005 Commission approves UK’s NESTA Invention and Innovation

Programme supporting new innovative firms

IP/05/1325 21.10.2005 Commission requires Greece to suspend illegal tax exempt fund

and opens investigation

IP/05/1331 24.10.2005 Commission opens inquiry into funding for broadband in

Appingedam (Netherlands)

IP/05/1333 24.10.2005 Commission endorses public funding for broadband in Kärnten,

Austria

IP/05/1334 24.10.2005 Commission orders repayment of €2.4 million subsidy paid to

Componenta Corporation in Finland

IP/05/1390 9.11.2005 European Commission authorises changes to a French aid scheme

to promote less polluting transport

IP/05/1393 9.11.2005 Commission opens inquiry into proposed subsidy to Ford’s plant in

Genk, Belgium

IP/05/1394 9.11.2005 Commission rules subsidy for digital terrestrial TV (DVB-T) in

Berlin-Brandenburg illegal; explains how digital TV can be supported

IP/05/1396 9.11.2005 Commission approves new scheme to support innovative

audiovisual works in France

IP/05/1406 10.11.2005 Commission endorses German innovation programme

IP/05/1407 10.11.2005 Commission opens formal investigation into long-term power

purchase agreements in Hungary

IP/05/1454 23.11.2005 Commission opens probe into Polish machinery company

Huta Stalowa Wola

IP/05/1455 23.11.2005 Commission opens investigation into long-term power purchase

agreements in Poland

IP/05/1465 24.11.2005 Commission prohibits real estate transfer tax exemption for

housing companies in Berlin

IP/05/1466 24.11.2005 Commission denies delivery date extensions for cruise ship at

Italian yard

IP/05/1517 1.12.2005 Commission closes formal investigation on CO2

taxation system in

Slovenia following changes to legislation

81


IP/05/1540 7.12.2005 Commission begins detailed examination of aid granted by SNCB to

Inter Ferry Boats

IP/05/1541 7.12.2005 Commission approves €140 million support to Snecma for an R&D

project

IP/05/1542 7.12.2005 Commission requires partial repayment of aid for alumina production

in France, Ireland and Italy

IP/05/1543 7.12.2005 Commission opens investigation into UK scheme to support paper

production from waste paper

IP/05/1548 8.12.2005 Commission approves IRAP tax deductions for job creation in Italy

IP/05/1549 8.12.2005 Commission investigates support to Greek vehicle producer

IP/05/1558 9.12.2005 Latest Scoreboard confirms that downward trend in the overall level of

aid has levelled off

IP/05/1653 21.12.2005 Commission adopts new regional aid guidelines for 2007-2013

IP/05/1654 21.12.2005 Commission gives go-ahead to conversion of the financial services

business of La Poste into a subsidiary

IP/05/1655 21.12.2005 Commission refers Spain to Court of Justice for failure to recover illegal

aid from Basque companies

IP/05/1657 21.12.2005 Commission opens inquiry into subsidy for digital decoders for terre-

strial TV in Italy

IP/05/1669 21.12.2005 Aid for renegotiating expensive debts in Greece

IP/05/1670 21.12.2005 European Commission authorises Italian investment aid to railway

transport in Autonomous Province of Trento

IP/05/1682 22.12.2005 Commission endorses the €270.5 million prolongation of the

Economic and Fiscal Regime of the Canary Islands

IP/05/1683 22.12.2005 Commission opens investigation into the State aid awarded to

Institut Français du Pétrole

IP/05/1685 22.12.2005 Commission investigates aid to Polish building company

Chemobudowa Kraków

82


Application of the competition rules in the Member States

The present chapter is a compilation of contributions from the competition authorities

of the Member States. More detailed information on the activities of these authorities

may be found in their national reports.

A – DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATES

1. Changes to national competition legislation

BELGIUM

In 2005 a Bill was drawn up to amend the Act on the Protection of Economic

Competition, as coordinated on 1 July 1999.

The main thrust of the Bill concerning the Protection of Economic Competition, which

is currently being debated, is threefold:

(1) to integrate the modernisation of European competition law rules;

(2) to increase the capacity of the Competition Council to deal with restrictive prac -

tices;

(3) to elevate the Competition Council to the status of the body hearing appeals from

decisions of sectoral regulators in the area of economic competition.

The main change brought about by Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of

16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in

Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty concerns the abolition of the system of notification as

applied since 1962.

Since 1 May 2004, undertakings must themselves assess whether their agreements ful-

fil the conditions of Article 81 taken as a whole. Although there is no obligation to ab -

olish national notification systems, maintaining the notification and exemption rules

would not be in keeping with the objectives underlying the modernisation exercise.

Moreover, it would unduly complicate the application of competition law by national

courts. The Bill proposes, therefore, that the provisions on notifications and exemptions

be abolished.

The Bill also provides for the possibility for the Belgian competition authority to adopt

guidelines, thereby enabling it to map out the broad lines of its policy.

In view of the decentralisation of the European competition rules, a section has been

devoted to cooperation with the European Commission and the competition authori-

ties of the other Member States, reproducing the principles governing such cooperation

set out in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

83

In the field of merger control, the procedure introduced by the new Bill, along the lines

of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, includes the possibility for undertakings to submit

commitments as early as phase I of the investigation.

At the institutional level, it is proposed that the composition of the Competition

Council be modified by increasing the number of full-time members (from four to six),

and that the Competition Council be relieved of some of its responsibilities by transfer-

ring them to the Auditorat. This body, which has been set up alongside the Competition

Council, itself replaces the Corps des Rapporteurs and sees its staff complement

increased to a maximum of 10.

The Auditorat is entrusted with the task of closing the file on complaints and applica-

tions for interim measures on grounds of inadmissibility or lack of substance. It also has

the power to clear certain merger operations between undertakings using a simplified

procedure.

This shifting of responsibilities, combined with a raising of the merger notification

thresholds, stems from the fact that the Competition Council used to devote much of

its time to merger operations which had little or no competitive impact on the Belgian

market.

Henceforth, the Competition Council should be able to concentrate more on cases

involving restrictive practices and abuses of dominant positions.

In order to strengthen the fight against restrictive practices, the Bill also provides for the

possibility of granting leniency to undertakings which help to establish the existence of

a prohibited practice by furnishing evidence to the competition authority.

Lastly, the Competition Council hears, in cases laid down by law, appeals against deci-

sions handed down by sectoral regulatory authorities. These include the Institut belge

des Postes et Télécommunication (IBPT), the Commission bancaire et financière et des

Assurances (CBFA), the Commission de Régulation de l’Electricité et du Gaz (CREG)

and the rail infrastructure manager.

It is for each organic law to specify which decisions may be appealed against to the

Competition Council.

CZECH REPUBLIC

The Czech national competition rules are enshrined in Act No 143/2001 Coll. on the

Protection of Competition. In 2005 this act was amended by Act No 361/2005 Coll.,

which entered into force on 1 October 2005. In particular, it incorporates the

Community block exemptions in Czech competition law so that they would be applied

to agreements with no effect on trade but which are caught by the national competition

84


rules. Furthermore, the Act on the Protection of Competition was amended by Act

No 127/2005 Coll. with regard to its application in the electronic communications sec-

tor, as outlined below.

Summary of new provisions

• Implementation of the possibility to seal business premises in the course of a dawn

raid (Article 21 paragraph 5)

• Article 22 – sanctions:

– for procedural delicts a fine up to 1 % of the turnover may be imposed

– a new type of fine is introduced for the breach of seals

• Community block exemptions will be applied to agreements without a European

Community dimension (Article 4)

• Another amendment to the Act on the Protection of Competition issued in 2005 con-

cerns the application of the Act to the electronic communications sector. It was intro-

duced by Act No 127/2005 Coll. (Act on Electronic Communications) which entered

into force as of 1 May 2005.

DENMARK

The Danish Competition Act was amended by Law No 1461 of 22 December 2004 and

took effect on 1 February 2005. The main legislative changes to the Competition Act

consist of the adaptation of the Competition Act to Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The

Danish Competition Act is based on the same principles as EC competition law and it

was therefore natural to adapt the Competition Act to the recent changes in the EC

competition law regime.

The main amendments of the Danish Competition Act are:

• Transparency

To ensure transparency in relation to violations of the Competition Act, the imposition

of fines in criminal proceedings is published on the web. This is to facilitate civil

lawsuits for damages for the benefit of consumers and undertakings. This concerns

both fines imposed in courts and fines imposed or accepted under section 23 (section

13(2) of the Competition Act). Danish courts are under an obligation to forward copies

of judgments concerning the Competition Act or Article 81 or 82 to the Competition

Authority (section 20(4) of the Competition Act).

• Access to file

The amendment limits parties’ access to file. This is in accordance with Regulation (EC)

No 1/2003, Articles 27 and 28, which also limits access to file with regard to correspon-

85

A – Developments in the Member States

dence and documents exchanged between the European Commission and the compe-

tition authorities of the Member States (section 15a(1) of the Competition Act).

• Commitments

In line with Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Competition Council can make commit-

ments provided by undertakings binding, if they fulfil the requirements of section 6(1),

section 11(1), and Article 81 or 82 (section 16a(1)). The provision is in line with Article

9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

• Inspections

The amended Competition Act allows the Competition Authority to seal documents

and seal business premises for a period of 72 hours. It is also clarified that the

Competition Authority can inspect business premises pursuant to Article 81 or 82 on

behalf of the Commission or on behalf of the competition authorities of the Member

States (section 18 of the Competition Act).

• Notification system

The amendment gives the Competition Council and the Competition Authority a num-

ber of new instruments in the administration of the Act. The national notification sys-

tem has, contrary to the EC rules, been preserved in Denmark. However, the

Competition Council or the Authority must refrain from considering notifications if an

agreement or practice appreciably affects trade between EU Member States (section

9(2) of the Competition Act).

• Dominant undertaking’s general trading terms

A new provision in the Competition Act consists of the right of the Competition

Council, under certain conditions, to order a dominant undertaking to submit its gen-

eral trading terms to the Competition Authority (section 10a of the Competition Act).

The purpose of the provision is to increase the transparency in a dominant under -

taking’s general trading terms for the benefit of the Competition Council, when it con-

siders whether a dominant undertaking has abused its dominant position.

• Other issues

The Danish Competition Authority can now issue decisions in English if the parties so

request (section 15c). The Competition Council orders, which were previously limited

to one year in duration, can now cover a period of more than one year. Two members

have been added to the Competition Tribunal. The Tribunal now consists of a chairper-

son and four members with expertise in either law or economics. The chairperson must

be a judge at the Danish Supreme Court (Højesteret) (section 21(1)).

As a result of the modernisation of the EC competition rules, the jurisdiction of the

Danish Competition Authority has been broadened. The Danish Competition

Authority can now deal with cases under Articles 81 and 82 where undertakings are

situated in Denmark, but where the competitive effects concern markets outside

Denmark but within the European Union (section 23a of the Competition Act).

86


A consolidated version of the Danish Competition Act is available at

http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/legislation/comp-act785-05/.

GERMANY

On 1 July, a law comprehensively amending the Law prohibiting Restraints of

Competition (GWB) entered into force. The purpose of the amendment was to bring

German law into line with European law, and in particular with Regulation (EC) No

1/2003. Under the new law, the notification and approval system for anticompetitive

agreements previously existing in German law is replaced by a legal exception system

and parallel application of European and national law is provided for. In order to estab -

lish wide-ranging unity of competition law, horizontal and vertical agreements which

have no effect on trade between Member States are also included in the new arrange-

ments. Under the amendment, fines may now also be imposed for infringements of

European law. The rules governing the imposition of fines on undertakings have also

been aligned very closely on the European rules. However, as regards control of abuses

in the form of unilateral anticompetitive behaviour, a few tried and tested provisions of

German law which have no equivalent in Article 82 EC have been maintained. In addi-

tion, under the amendment, civil law sanctions for infringements of antitrust law have

been improved so as to give more weight to private law enforcement. And besides the

Federal Cartel Office, the regional cartel authorities are now authorised to apply

European law. The law as amended also contains rules on the exchange of information

between authorities and on the transposition of Article 15 of Regulation (EC)

No 1/2003 (amicus curiae).

In 2005, the Federal Government agreed that a further amendment was necessary as

regards control of abuses. It was felt that the existing prohibition on powerful under -

takings making offers below cost price more often than only ‘occasionally’ should be

strengthened in the case of foodstuffs. Even occasional sales below cost price are there-

fore prohibited in the case of foodstuffs, except where there is an objective justification.

The Federal Government hopes thus to strengthen the position of small and medium-

sized commercial undertakings, which are unable to stand up to the low-price strate-

gies of the large retailers and are often squeezed out of the market as a result. It is plan-

ned to pass the amendment in 2006.

ESTONIA

In 2005, there were two major legislative developments: firstly, key amendments to the

Estonian Competition Act have been drafted and, secondly, the Chief Public Prosecutor

has been preparing leniency guidelines.

The amendments to the Competition Act focus on abolishing the exemption notifica-

tion system. The notification system was found to be unnecessary as it was very rarely

used by undertakings. The draft amendment has been submitted to the Parliament and

will hopefully enter into force in July 2006.

87


With respect to the preparation of leniency guidelines, according to the Penal Code,

agreements, decisions and concerted practices which restrict competition are regarded

as criminal offences. Criminal proceedings can be terminated by the court upon the

Public Prosecutor’s Office's request in the event of lack of public interest in proceedings

and in case of negligible guilt (Code of Criminal Procedure Article 202). The Public

Prosecutor’s Office may also, by its order, terminate criminal proceedings with regard

to a person suspected or accused with his or her consent if the suspect or the accused

has significantly facilitated the ascertaining of facts relating to a subject of proof of a

criminal offence which is important from the point of view of public interest in the

proceedings and if, without such assistance, the detection of the criminal offence and

collection of evidence would have been precluded or would be especially complicated

(Code of Criminal Procedure Article 205).

The abovementioned provisions are the main legal basis for the adoption of leniency

guidelines in the cases of anticompetitive cooperation of the undertakings. In order to

ensure the effective implementation of the leniency programme, the Chief Public

Prosecutor has been working extensively on drafting the leniency guidelines. The

Competition Board has submitted to the State Prosecutors’ Office its proposals in this

regard.

GREECE

Main provisions of Law 703/1977 (the Greek antitrust legislation) and its principal recent

amendments

Law 703/1977(9) on the control of monopolies and oligopolies and the protection offree competition was enacted shortly before Greece became a member of the European

Community. The main provisions of the law remain similar to that of Articles 81 and

82 of the EC Treaty. In 2005, Law 3373/2005, amending Law 703/1977, was adopted by

the Greek Parliament, which to a large extent aligned the Greek legislation with Council

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and introduced several major modifications to Greek anti-

trust law; (i) it provided the legal basis and the legislative authorisation for a leniency

programme; (ii) it enhanced the powers of investigation of the Hellenic Competition

Commission (HCC), as well as the latter’s powers in case of infringements of Law

703/1977; (iii) it reintroduced the prohibition on the abuse of a relationship of econ -

omic dependence; (iv) it empowered the HCC to take regulatory interventions in

sectors of the economy; and (v) it reinforced the internal structure of the HCC (inter

alia, by providing the HCC with a distinct legal personality and by increasing the

number of HCC’s members and its employees).

88


(9) As amended by Laws 1934/1991, 2000/1991, 2296/1995, 2741/1999, 2837/2000 and recently by

Law 3373/2005 (published in the Government Gazette, Issue 188, 2 August 2005).

It should be noted that the HCC is expected to issue notices(10), inter alia on the issues

of leniency and of access to file, in the immediate future.


• Leniency programme

Law 3373/2005 introduced the legal basis for the Greek leniency programme (addition

of a new paragraph 4 to Article 9 of Law 703/1977). The introduction of the leniency

programme is imminent. Participation of an undertaking in the leniency programme

will exempt the natural persons concerned from criminal prosecution. The programme

will not apply to undertakings abusing their dominant position.

• Inspections – Investigations

According to Law 3373/2005, the powers of investigation of the HCC are significantly

enhanced, in line with Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

• Amicus curiae

By virtue of the insertion of a new element #14 in paragraph 2, Article 8b of Law

703/1977, the HCC, on its own initiative, may issue a written (or, with the permission

of the competent court, oral) opinion addressed to the courts with regard to the appli-

cation of Articles 81 and 82 EC and may request any document necessary for the issu-

ance of such an opinion (with the exception of the procedure before the Athens

Administrative Court of Appeal and before the Council of the State).

Pursuant to new paragraph 3 in Article 18 of Law 703/1977, it is expressly provided that

any court applying Articles 81 and 82 EC may request from the European Commission

the transmission of information in the latter’s possession or it may request the European

Commission’s opinion on issues concerning the application of the EC competition

legislation.

• Sanctions

According to Article 9 of Law 703/1977, the powers of the HCC in case of infringe-

ments of Law 703/1977 have been enhanced.

• Other issues

(a) Prohibition of abuse of economic dependence relationship

Article 2a of Law 703/1977: Prohibited abuse of a relationship of economic dependence

Law 3373/2005 reintroduced Article 2a (abolished by the amendment to Law 703/1977

in August 2000), which governs relationships of economic dependence between one

or more undertakings and a customer or supplier, where the customer or supplier has

no equivalent alternative source of supply or demand of the product or service in

question. Under those circumstances, it constitutes an abuse of the relationship of

89


(10) In the form of decisions.

economic dependence to impose arbitrary trading conditions, or discriminate, or

unexpectedly and unjustifiably terminate the long-lasting commercial relationship.

(b) Regulatory intervention in sectors of the national economy

Law 3373/2005 introduced a new Article 5 on the possibility of regulatory interven -

tion in sectors of the economy.

Upon request by the Minister for Development or ex officio, the HCC may examine

a specific sector of the Greek economy and if it confirms that in the said sector the

conditions for effective competition do not exist and at the same time considers that

the application of Articles 1, 2, 2a and 4 ff. does not suffice for the creation of condi-

tions of effective competition it may, by virtue of a justified decision, take any absolu-

tely indispensable measure of conduct or structure for the creation of conditions of

effective competition in that specific sector of the economy.

(c) Alignment with various provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

Article 8b of Law 703/1977 is amended as follows:

– Without prejudice to the competences of other authorities appointed by virtue of a

pertinent legislative provision, the HCC is deemed to have exclusive competence

with regard to the provisions of the present law and Articles 81 and 82 EC.

– The HCC may withdraw the benefit of an exemption according to paragraph 2,

Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the

implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the

Treaty.

– The HCC must apply the Community competition rules in close cooperation with

the European Commission and the competition authorities of other Member States

of the EU.

According to the new Article 11b of Law 703/1977, the initiation by the European

Commission of proceedings for the adoption of a decision under Chapter III of

Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 shall relieve the HCC of its competence to apply

Articles 81 and 82 EC. Where a competition authority of another Member State has

received a complaint or is acting on its own initiative under Article 81 or Article 82 of

the Treaty against an agreement, decision of an association or practice of one or more

undertakings, the HCC may for this reason suspend or terminate the proceedings

initiated on its initiative or reject the complaint, or proceed normally and issue a

decision on the substance of the case.

(d) Joint ventures

According to Law 3373/2005 all full function joint ventures are considered to be con-

centrations subject to merger control provisions. However, to the extent that the cre-

ation of a joint venture has a cooperative dimension, it is examined under the criteria

of Article 1 paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 of Law 703/1977. In the course of such an

90


evaluation, the HCC shall take into account: (a) whether the two or more parent

undertakings exercise, to a significant degree, activities in the same market as the joint

venture or in an upstream, downstream or neighbouring, closely related market and

(b) whether the cooperative effects arising directly from the creation of the joint ven-

ture provide the undertakings involved with the possibility to eliminate competition

in a substantial part of their markets.

SPAIN

In 2005 no new legal provisions amending domestic competition law have been adop-

ted. Nevertheless, there has been intense activity with the aim of reviewing the current

Spanish competition system.

Government proposals for new legislation

1. White Paper on the reform of the Spanish competition system

A White Paper on the reform of the Spanish competition system was drawn up in 2004

and officially presented by the Second Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for

Economic and Financial Affairs on 20 January 2005. This document is a discussion

paper intended to initiate a review of the legislative and institutional competition

framework in Spain to ensure that the best instruments and structures are in place to

protect effective competition in markets with a view to social well-being and efficient

allocation of resources.

The White Paper proposes various reform measures affecting the institutional frame-

work of the Spanish Competition Authorities, the fight against anticompetitive practi-

ces, the merger control system, the control of State aid and the advocacy role of the

Competition Authority. These measures provide for greater independence for this

Authority, the strengthening of enforcement powers in particular by means of the intro-

duction of a leniency programme, the speeding up of judicial review procedures, better

coordination with industry regulators and, possibly, the direct application of national

competition rules by courts.

The White Paper was subject to a public consultation process via the website of the

Competition Service, and many contributions and comments have been received.

2. Preparation of the draft law

The main proposals of the White Paper are included in the draft Competition Act cur-

rently under preparation. The draft has been sent for consultation to the Competition

Tribunal. The Competition Tribunal has made several observations, some of which are

included in the draft.

Furthermore, the Consejo de Defensa de la Competencia, which is the body in charge

of mutual collaboration, coordination and information between the State and the

91


autonomous communities to promote uniform application of the legislation on com -

petition, has issued a favourable report.

The draft is to be submitted to the Parliament in the course of 2006.

FRANCE

A first decree (No 2005-1668), dated 27 December 2005, fleshes out the conditions of

application of the competition rules which were brought into line with Regulation (EC)

No 1/2003 in 2004. It specifies the procedures for providing assistance pursuant to

Article 22(1) of the r egulation. It lays down new rules of procedure for examining cases

before the Competition Council with an eye to the effectiveness of public action and in

conformity with the rights of the defence. It establishes both the framework for the

compulsory transmission of judgments delivered pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 (pur-

suant to Article 15(1) of regulation (EC) No 1/2003) and for requests for opinions or

information made by courts to the European Commission further to Article 15(2) of

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

A second decree (No 2005-1667), also dated 27 December 2005, lays down rules gover-

ning the representation of the Competition Council before the appeal court.

A third decree (No 2005-1756), dated 30 December 2005, establishes civil and commer-

cial courts specialising in disputes relating to the application of national and

Community competition rules.


• Inspections

Decree No 2005-1668 lays down rules governing the assistance that may be provided by

officials of other national competition authorities to the authorised inspectors of the

Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control

(DGCCRF): the report must mention the name and the presence of the assisting

inspector and refer to the decision of the minister authorising the assistance.

• Amicus curiae

Decree No 2005-1668 provides that the Competition Council will be represented be fore

the court hearing appeals from its decisions by its president or a person appointed by

him.

Decree No 2005-1667 extends the possibility for the Competition Council to produce

written observations before the appeal court by permitting it to intervene orally at hear -

ings in the same way as other independent administrative authorities. The same pos -

sibility of oral intervention had already been offered to the Minister for Economic

Affairs.

92


• Access to file

With regard to business secrets, the Decree No 2005-1668 sets out the procedure to

be followed by businesses when indicating business secrets and asking that they be

classified as such. It sets out the conditions governing the refusal of such a request

where it is made out of time or where it is abusive or unfounded, and lays down new

rules governing access to the file in conformity with the rights of the defence and with

the principle of good administration of the public interest.

• Commitments/Sanctions

Decree No 2005-1668 lays down the procedures for processing commitments proposed

to the Competition Council by businesses and the conditions governing the payment of

any penalties imposed by the Competition Council.

• Private enforcement

Decree No 2005-1756 lists the eight civil and commercial courts specialising in dis putes

relating to the application of national and Community competition rules, namely the

courts of Marseille, Bordeaux, Lille, Fort-de-France, Lyon, Nancy, Paris and Rennes.

The Paris Court of Appeal has been chosen as the only court with jurisdiction to hear

appeals.

IRELAND

In 2005 there was no substantive change to national competition legislation apart from

the repeal of retention orders.

Repeal of retention orders

Under Section 45(3) of the Competition Act 2002, the Competition Authority could

seize, under warrant, original books, documents and records. Subsection (6) stated that

‘Any books, documents or records which are seized under subsection (3) may be retained

for a period of 6 months or such longer period as may be permitted by a Judge of the

District Court ...’ This meant that where the Competition Authority sought to retain any

book/document/record seized pursuant to a warrant beyond a six-month period that

retention had to be approved by the District Court.

This requirement was repealed under Section 76 of the Investment Funds, Companies

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005. This means the requirement that the

Competition Authority must apply to the District Court for permission to retain or

extend the retention period on documents seized is now repealed. However provisions

of the old requirement under Section 45(6) still apply to evidence seized before 30 June

2005. Subsection 76(3) of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act 2005 provides:

93


‘Notwithstanding the repeal by this section of subsection 6 of Section 45 of the Competition

Act, that subsection 6 shall continue to apply to any books, documents or records seized or

obtained under that section before commencement of this section.’

ITALY

Law No 262 of 28 December 2005 repealed Article 20 of the Competition Act which

entrusted the Bank of Italy with the enforcement of competition rules on agreements,

abuses of dominant position and mergers in the banking sector. Therefore, as of 2006,

the Italian Competition Authority has full and exclusive competence to apply (national

and Community) competition rules across all economic sectors.

CYPRUS

In 2005 there were no legislative developments in the national legislation of Cyprus.

LATVIA

In 2005 there were no legislative developments in the national legislation of Latvia.

LITHUANIA

In 2005 there were no legislative developments in the national legislation of Lithuania.

LUXEMBOURG

There has been no change in legislation relating to competition as such since the adop-

tion of the law of 17 May 2004 relating to competition.

HUNGARY

In 2005 many provisions of the Competition Act (CA) were amended. The rationale

behind the modifications was the following: firstly, several provisions of the CA had to

be brought into line with the new Hungarian rules governing administrative proce -

dures, which are complementary to the competition provisions; secondly, certain CA

rules were amended to facilitate the application of European Community law and

cooperation within the ECN; thirdly, experience gathered in the application of

competition rules also gave rise to the amendment of certain provisions. In a further

legislative development, since 1 September 2005, bid rigging in public procurement

procedures or in procedures for the award of concessions is assessed, depending on the

contract value, as a lesser or more severe crime punishable by imprisonment of up to

two or five years (Criminal Code, § 296/B).

94



The individual exemption system was abolished.

Unlike the rules under the previous regime, any person may now make a complaint or

an informal complaint alleging infringement of the competition rules to the

Competition Office. Complaints can be submitted to the Competition Office on a pro-

perly completed form issued by the Competition Office. If the information provided is

qualitatively sufficient to initiate a competition supervision proceeding, the

Competition Office will treat the form submitted as a complaint, otherwise it will deal

with it as an informal complaint. The reason for the distinction between a complaint

and an informal complaint is essential because a person making a ‘real’ complaint has

additional rights: he may have limited access to documents and he may make an appeal

against a decision of the Competition Council which finds that the conditions for the

opening of an investigation are not fulfilled before a judicial court. The advantage of the

new system is that, through the appropriate filling out of the form, complainants

provide more detailed information about the alleged infringement, facilitating the

investigation of the authority. On the other hand, persons not well enough informed

about the market situation can only submit informal complaints relieving the author ity

from the administrative burden caused by the great number of unfounded complaints

and the appeals against decisions rejecting such complaints.

Prior to the amendment introduced in 2005, parties suffering damages were not

expressly entitled under Hungarian law to turn directly, i.e. without obtaining a prior

decision from the competition authority, to courts. The amendments recognise the

direct effect of EC law and explicitly authorise courts to decide on the infringement of

the antitrust rules, and to reach decisions to this effect. The amendments to the CA

have inserted detailed rules for regulating the procedures of private enforcement of

antitrust law. For example, if the Competition Office or an administrative court of

appeal establishes the unlawfulness of an agreement or conduct in a certain case, the

civil court is indeed bound by that part of the decision. Civil courts are also obliged to

inform the Competition Office about the submission of claims in order to facilitate its

appearance in the judicial proceedings as amicus curiae.

More detailed rules were also introduced for sector inquiries. The initiation of those

inquiries and the procedure to be followed are more clearly regulated.

Commitment decisions were also introduced into the CA. The Competition Office

could apply this form of decision only in cases where the investigation was based on EC

law. It was considered that this possibility should be extended to national law.

The new amendments also affected to some extent the investigative powers of the

Competition Office. According to a new provision of the CA, physical back-up copies

of data carriers acquired by IT forensic means qualify as any other data and therefore

95


the Competition Office has access to them. Legal privilege also became regulated in the

Act, based on the principles of EC competition law.

MALTA

In 2005 there were no legislative developments in the national legislation of Malta.

NETHERLANDS

On 7 December 2004, the Dutch Parliament approved the bill which transformed the

Netherlands Competition Authority into an independent administrative authority. As

of 1 July 2005, the Netherlands Competition Authority is no longer an agency of the

Ministry of Economic Affairs, but has acquired a Board with the status of an indepen-

dent administrative authority. The Board of the Netherlands Competition Authority

consists of three members. The most important amendment to the Competition Act is

that the Minister for Economic Affairs ceased to have the power to issue directives in

individual competition cases. The Minister remains responsible, however, for competi-

tion policy and may issue the Netherlands Competition Authority with general direc -

tives. The Amendment Act (Independent Administrative Authority) (Wet tot wijziging

van de Mededingingswet in verband met het omvormen van het bestuursorgaan van de

Nederlandse mededingingsautoriteit tot zelf-standig bestuursorgaan) provides for the full

integration of the Office for Energy Regulation (DTe) into the Netherlands

Competition Authority. Acquiring the status of an independent administrative author -

ity has no consequences for the legal position of the Netherlands Competition

Authority’s employees. They continue to be employed by the Ministry of Economic

Affairs.


Sanctions

Specific guidelines concerning fining in the construction sector (available in Dutch at

the Netherlands Competition Authority’s website www.nmanet.nl)

– Guidelines on Fines in respect of Certain Anticompetitive Activities in the Road

Construction and Infrastructure Construction Sector (GWW) – 13 October 2004

– Guidelines on Fines in respect of Certain Anticompetitive Activities in the

Installation Engineering Sector – 21 April 2005

– Guidelines on Fines in respect of Certain Anticompetitive Activities in the Housing

and Utility Construction Sector – 1 September 2005 (Rectification of the Publication

on the Application of Fines in respect of Certain Anticompetitive Activities in the

Housing and Utility Construction Sector – 11 October 2005)

– Guidelines on Fines in respect of Cables and Wires – 17 November 2005

96


– Guidelines on Fines in respect of Green Areas – 24 November 2005

– Guidelines on Fines in respect of Certain Anticompetitive Activities in the

Manufacture of Concrete Products (mortar, concrete paving stones, prefabricated

concrete piles, concrete floor elements) – 24 November 2005

Other issues

Guidelines for informants

In December 2005 the Netherlands Competition Authority enacted guidelines for

informants. The purpose of these guidelines is to inform individuals who have

information concerning possible violations of the Competition Act about the possi-

bilities and conditions for disclosing information to the Netherlands Competition

Authority.

By giving insight into the way the Netherlands Competition Authority deals with

informants (and their anonymity), the Netherlands Competition Authority expects

more informants to come forward with information. This is important since infor-

mation provided by individuals can be crucial for enacting the tasks entrusted by

law to the Competition Authority. It can lead to new investigations or give more

insight into specific market sectors.

One of the central aspects in the guidelines is the possibility for informants to

remain anonymous. If a person whose identity is unknown to the Netherlands

Competition Authority comes forward with information, it will refrain from taking

steps to find out the identity of the individual and as a result this person can be sure

that his identity will not be revealed. If, on the other hand, the Netherlands

Competition Authority knows the identity of the informant, his anonymity cannot

be guaranteed because it can be ordered by a court to reveal the identity of the

informant if this should be deemed necessary in a specific case.

The guidelines for informants set out different possibilities for informants to give

their information to the Netherlands Competition Authority. To ensure that indivi-

duals effectively provide the information they hold, the Netherlands Competition

Authority has made an agreement with a national contact point for reporting crime

anonymously. Naturally, individuals can also call the direct information line of the

Netherlands Competition Authority or send an email. Another possibility to give

information to the Netherlands Competition Authority is through a third person

who functions as an intermediary.

Most importantly the Netherlands Competition Authority wants to encourage

informants to contact it if they think they may have interesting information.

97


AUSTRIA

After lengthy and exhaustive preparatory work, the proposals for a Cartel Act and an

amended Competition Act were submitted for debate in January and were adopted in

June by Parliament (2005 Cartel Act, BGBI 61/2005; 2005 amended Competition Act,

BGBI 62/2005). The key points of the two amendments are the transposition of

Community law (Articles 81 and 82 EC) into Austrian cartel law, the abolition of the

notification and registration systems, the introduction of a leniency programme plus

some changes to aspects of centralised merger control (higher intervention thresholds,

transfer of notification from the Cartel Court to the Federal Competition Authority

(BWB) and bringing cooperative joint ventures under centralised merger control).

Summary of the main new rules

The essential elements of the reform that entered into force on 1 January 2006 are:

• Prohibition of cartels and abuses of dominant positions in line with Articles 81 and 82

EC

• Repeal of the authorisation requirement for cartels and of the notification require-

ment for vertical distribution agreements and non-binding recommendations of asso-

ciations in favour of a legal exception system

• Procedures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (in particular termination

decisions and commitments)

• Legal authorisation to adopt a leniency programme (see BWB’s manual on its web site:

www.bwb.gv.at)

• Merger notifications to the BWB instead of the Cartel Court

• Marked raising of several thresholds for the notification requirement

• Bringing cooperative joint ventures under merger control

POLAND

In 2005 there were no key changes to Polish competition law.

PORTUGAL

Legal framework for the motor vehicle fuel market (Portaria 362/2005 of 4 April 2005

and Decree-Law No 170/2005 of 10 October 2005)

98


As a follow-up to the Portuguese Competition Authority’s recommendation to the

Government concerning the functioning of the motor vehicle fuel market, two legal

measures were issued in 2005 in order to promote more competition in this market.

The first of these is intended to prevent regulations on security from constituting a bar-

rier to the entrance of new operators, particularly the hypermarkets. Apart from seek -

ing to ensure a more competitive fuel market, consumer protection is also envisaged.

The Decree-Law also imposes an obligation on retailers to display their pricelists in

large panels placed along highways allowing consumers to make their choice of supplier

before entering the premises of the fuel station.

Recommendation No 1/2005 – Gas sector

The introduction of natural gas in Portugal required a new legal framework on instal-

lation security norms as well as on the creation of the inspection bodies.

The Portuguese Competition Authority recommended that the Government revoke the

decision granting to the Instituto Tecnológico de Gás (ITG) the right to act as a gas

facilities inspector and as a certifier. As the ITG is a non-profit-making public utility,

whose main associates are gas undertakings, its activity as a gas supplier certifier could

lead to distortions of competition.

The Portuguese Competition Authority also suggested further clarification of the obli-

gations for different operators in this area and measures to reduce the strong informa-

tion asymmetries between operators and consumers.

Recommendation No 2/2005 – Mobile telephony services

The Portuguese Competition Authority presented a recommendation to the

Government on the form and the places in which the prices of services provided by

mobile telecommunications operators are to be presented. It proposes measures that

will facilitate choice of the most efficient tariff for consumers and promote tariff

competition among mobile communications operators.

Comparing tariffs is a highly complex matter and involves taking a vast number of vari-

ables into account. This makes the choice of the most suitable tariff for each consumer

more difficult. The Portuguese Competition Authority has therefore decided to submit

a recommendation to the Government, proposing that it should pass legislation en -

abling consumers to calculate monthly expenditure and compare tariff plans among

operators or within the same network, as well as other loyalty and penalty conditions,

by means of standard simulators on every operator’s website.

The Authority considers that this instrument will provide consumers with the ‘mini-

mum cost’ option by enabling them to compare the different tariffs offered by operators

99


for a given consumption profile. This will allow them to select the most favourable

alternative on the basis of price.


Draft proposal of Decree-Law on Leniency Programme

Portugal currently does not have a leniency programme. However, the Portuguese

Competition Authority presented to the Government a draft proposal which would cre-

ate a leniency programme providing for full immunity or the reduction of the fines

applicable in case of practices caught by Article 4 of the Portuguese Competition Act

(very similar to Article 81 of the EC Treaty), imposed either on undertakings or on

natural persons/individuals. The proposed regime will benefit only the first two under-

takings that come forward, and sets two levels of fine reduction – up to 50% and over

50% - and includes the possibility of ‘leniency plus’.

Draft proposal of Decree-Law on Procedural Rules in the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

The Portuguese Competition Authority has presented a draft proposal to the

Government which aims to give full effect to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No

1/2003 on cooperation with national courts, as it considers that its enforcement could

be jeopardised in the absence of the adequate legal procedures at national level. This

draft proposal aims to clarify the framework for presenting ‘amicus curiae briefs’ by the

Commission or by the Portuguese Competition Authority to national courts, as well as

for opinions requested by national courts from both agencies. It also establishes the

legal channel for the communication of judicial decisions referring to Articles 81 and

82 of the EC Treaty to the Commission.

SLOVENIA

In 2005 there were no legislative developments in the national legislation of Slovenia.

SLOVAKIA

There were no legislative developments in 2005. The Office is currently working on new

guidelines relating to inspections, leniency and sanctions.

FINLAND

The Parliament approved a bill in December concerning payments such as bribes and

sanctions, including competition infringement fines, so that they shall no longer be tax-

deductible as this undermines their deterrent effect. The law shall be enforced for the

first time in the 2006 taxation year (360/1968).

100


SWEDEN


• Inspections

Amendment to Article 48 of the Competition Act: a decision by the Stockholm City

Court concerning inspections may cover homes and other premises used by members

of the board and employees in the undertaking which is subject to investigation (Act

2005:598).

• Sanctions

Amendment to Article 33 of the Competition Act: right to claim compensation for

damages caused by undertakings which, intentionally or negligently, have infringed the

Competition Act or Article 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty (Act 2005:598).

UNITED KINGDOM

In 2005 there were no legislative developments in the national legislation of the United

Kingdom.

101


2. Enforcement of EC competition rules by national competition authorities

The following decisions have been reported by the Member States:

BELGIUM

Case summaries

Abuse of dominant positions

On 30 November 2005, the Belgian Competition Council handed down, at the end of a

proceeding initiated to examine an abuse of a dominant position, a decision accepting

the commitments proposed by the undertaking Coca-Cola Enterprises Belgium

(CCEB). The decision supplements the decision adopted by the European Commission

on 22 June 2005 (Case COMP/39.116) in view of the fact that the objections were dif-

ferent. The same product market definition was used.

In the absence of an express provision for the possibility of accepting commitments

under Belgian law, the Competition Council based its decision on Article 45 of

Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, which states that the regulation is binding in its entirety

(including, therefore, Article 5) and directly applicable in all Member States.

The commitments offered were assessed and further developed by the competition

auth ority. They were forwarded to the leading operators on the market for their

comments. Applying the same logic as the 13th recital to Regulation (EC) No 1/2003,

the decision finds that the commitments given by CCEB suffice to meet the

Competition Council's concerns and answer adequately the objections raised without it

being necessary to establish whether there has been or still is an infringement. The

commitments will help to intensify competition on the Belgian market for carbonated

soft drinks. CCEB commits itself to applying equal conditions to all its customers in an

equivalent situation. This principle of non-discrimination forms the basis for all the

clauses of these commitments and of CCEB’s commercial and operational policy.

The decision became final in the absence of an appeal within the time limits.

Agreements and concerted practices

On 29 July 2005, the Belgian Competition Council handed down, at the end of a pro-

ceeding which began as an own-initiative investigation by the Corps des Rapporteurs

in response to a complaint, a decision concerning the granting by the Belgian

Professional Football League (Ligue belge de football professionnel – LBV) of retrans-

mission rights in first and second division Belgian football championship matches for

the seasons 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. On 9 May 2005, the LBV had, on

behalf of first and second division football clubs, allocated all such rights to Belgacom

Skynet.

102


Such a joint sale of their retransmission rights constituted, on the part of the football

clubs, an agreement the lawfulness of which had to be verified in the light of Article 81

EC. Article 81 EC was applicable because the criteria set out in the Commission notice

containing guidelines on the effect on trade were met.

The Competition Council considered that the granting by the LBV to Belgacom Skynet

of all television retransmission rights was not contrary to Article 81 EC. The Council

took into account, inter alia, the fact that Belgacom, the former incumbent telecommu-

nications operator, was a new entrant to the market for pay-TV services, which had

hitherto been dominated by other channels.

This decision by the Competition Council has been appealed against before the

Brussels Court of Appeal. The Court’s judgment is expected during the second half of

2006.

List of decisions taken by the national competition authority applying Articles 81/82

• Decision 2005-I/O-40 of 29 July 2005: Combined sale of the retransmission rights in

the Belgian football championship (LBV)

Full text of the decision (in Dutch only):

Belgisch Staatsblad (B.S.) 20.10.2005 – Ed. 2 (pp. 44947 – 44957)

Revue trimestrielle de jurisprudence du Conseil, p. 28 on the Competition Council’s

website at the address:

http://www.mineco.fgov.be/organization_market/competition/

jurisprudence/jurisprudence_2005_03.pdf

Text of the press release (in French):

http://www.mineco.fgov.be/organization_market/competition/press_releases/

press_release_29072005_fr.pdf

Text of the press release (in Dutch):


press_release_29072005_nl.pdf

• Decision 2005-I/O-52 of 30 November 2005: Distri-One SA / Coca-Cola Enterprises

Belgium SPRL

Full text of the decision (in French only):

Moniteur belge (M.B.) 22.12.2005 – Ed. 2 – (pp. 55371 – 55386)

Recent Competition Council decisions on the Council’s website at the address:

http://www.mineco.fgov.be/organization_market/competition/

jurisprudence/jurisprudence_30112005.pdf

Text of the press release (in Dutch):


press_release_30112005_nl.pdf

103


• Decision 2005-P/K-58 of 21 December 2005: G. Delandes Diffusion / Federauto

Full text of the decision (in French only):

Moniteur belge (M.B.) 27.2.2006 (pp. 10503-10506)

Raad voor de Mededinging. Driemaandelijks Tijdschrift van Rechtspraak, 2005,

No 4, p. 94:

http://mineco.fgov.be/organization_market/competition/jurisprudence/

jurisprudence_2005_04.pdf

CZECH REPUBLIC

In 2005, the Office issued the following two decisions applying Article 82 of the EC

Treaty:

Abuse of dominant position by State-owned forestry company

In 2005, an investigation was initiated with respect to a possible breach of the

Competition Act and Article 82 EC by the State-owned company Lesy České repu-

bliky, s.p. (the Forests of the Czech Republic, hereinafter referred to as LCR). LCR ter-

minated contractual relationships with its suppliers concerning forestry works by de -

claring some contracts invalid and requiring a change to a system based on individual

orders.

The Office for the Protection of Competition established that LCR had a dominant

position on the market for growing activities, exploitation activities in the forest and on

the market for raw timber. It concluded that LCR caused factual detriment to its

contractual partners consisting of a temporary interruption of the forestry activities as

well as non-material detriment, resulting from uncertainty about further possibilities of

cooperation with LCR, which was to the prejudice of the investments already imple-

mented by the affected companies.

LCR proposed to the Office the adoption of measures and commitments, which.the

Office for the Protection of Competition found would eliminate any further possible

negative impact of LCR’s activities on its contractual partners. A decision was adopted

by the Office under which LCR was obliged to reinstate its former contractual relation -

ships. Furthermore, a duty was imposed on LCR to perform the selection of all its con-

tractual partners for the complex supply of growing and exploiting activity exclusively

on the basis of transparent and undiscriminating tenders, the principles of which had

been negotiated with the Office. In line with the Act, the Office ceased its investigation

on the basis that the behaviour in question had not resulted in a substantial distortion

of competition. LCR complied with the abovementioned remedial measures.

Abuse of dominant position by telecoms operator

Since 2002, the incumbent telecoms operator Český Telecom, a.s. (hereinafter referred

to as ČTc) had offered price plans intended for households and small entrepreneurs,

containing call credits or free minutes as a part of a monthly flat rate. The abuse of the

104


dominant position of ČTc consisted in bundling services together, i.e. the monthly flat

rate offered on markets where it has a substantially dominant position together with the

services offered on the abovementioned markets where the competitive environment

is continually developing. The customers of ČTc, by purchasing a price plan containing

a call credit or free minutes, obtained certain calls ‘for free’. In case a customer

telephoned less than the amount of the call credit or free minutes, he or she still had to

pay the full monthly flat rate, and the amount of payment did not reflect the fact that

the call credit (free minutes) had not been fully used. The structure of the price plans

in question did not enable the break down of the payment into the call charges and the

lease of the telephone line. Customers were for this reason less willing to call through

other operators, because they did not want to lose something they obtained ‘for free’ as

part of the monthly flat rate. Customers of ČTc were not informed when they had

used up their free minutes or call credits. Customers were also unable to make a

comparision on the basis of cost with the services offered by other telecoms operators

due to the non-transparent price conditions.

However, harm was caused primarily to the competitors of ČTc which could only com-

pete on an insignificant level. Thus, the development of a sound competitive environ-

ment, from which consumers would ultimately have profited, was impeded. It was pro-

ven during the procedure that the conduct of the incumbent had an unfavourable

impact on the structure of competition on the common market and on trade between

the Member States of the European Community. For the breach of Article 82 EC a

penalty of CZK 205 000 000 (approximately EUR 7.5 million) was imposed on ČTc.

DENMARK

Abuse of dominant position

TV2’s prices and conditions for TV commercials

The Competition Council concluded that parts of TV2’s rebate system constitute

infringements of Article 82 of the Treaty and section 11(1) of the Danish Competition

Act. The relevant market is defined as the market for TV advertising in Denmark. The

State-owned national TV company TV2 has a dominant position on this market with a

market share above 50%, during the period 2001-2005. The geographic market is

Denmark.

Because of TV2’s penetration of nearly 100% of the TV market and its large share of the

viewing audience, advertisers which wish to run national TV advertisement campaigns

with high coverage need to place most of their TV advertisement campaign budget with

TV2. In effect, competition on the TV advertising market mainly takes place with res-

pect to the marginal part of advertisers’ TV advertisement budgets. When concluding

annual agreements with advertisers, TV2 offers an annual rebate, the size of which

depends on the advertiser’s annual budget. TV2’s annual rebate is a progressive retro-

active rebate with several volume thresholds. The percentage granted ranges from 4.7%

to 19.7%.

105


An economic analysis was made of the effects of the rebate scheme. It was found that

TV2’s annual rebate allowed TV2 to charge a high price on the first part of an adverti-

ser’s annual budget and a low price on the marginal part of an advertiser’s budget.

Because of TV2’s position on the market and the fact that competition mainly takes

place concerning the allocation of the marginal part of advertisers’ TV advertisement

campaign budgets, TV2’s annual rebate was capable of having an exclusionary effect on

the market. TV2 was ordered to abandon the rebate scheme. The case was based on a

notification from TV2.

Elsam’s use of abusive pricing

The Competition Council decided that the energy company Elsam had abused its

dominant position on the market for wholesale of electricity (spot and OTC). Elsam is

a Danish energy company active in the production and sale of electricity at the whole-

sale level. The abuse consisted of excessive pricing of electricity on the wholesale

market of Nord Pool, cf. Article 82(1)(a) EC. The geographic market comprised the

western part of Denmark.

The Competition Council considered that in the period 1 July 2003 to 31 December

2004 Elsam abused its dominant position over a total period of 900 hours by submit-

ting excessive price bids for the supply of electricity to Nord Pool. The Competition

Authority considered that Elsam’s pricing behaviour resulted in a loss for the consumers

(private and businesses) of EUR 25 million. Due to the particular circumstances on the

wholesale electricity market, the Competition Council had to take the unusual step of

ordering Elsam to follow a certain pricing scheme for Elsam’s submission of bids to

Nord Pool. The pricing scheme prescribes the use of a certain formulas. This limits the

prices Elsam can submit to Nord Pool’s spot market.


Carlsberg’s standard agreement in the Horeca sector

In October 2005, the Danish Competition Council adopted a decision that renders

commitments from Carlsberg concerning its beer agreements with Danish hotels, res-

taurants and cafes legally binding. In its preliminary assessment, the Danish

Competition Authority found that certain business practices of Carlsberg in the supply

of beer relating to exclusivity requirements were of concern under section 6 of the

Danish Competition Act/Article 81 EC and section 11 of the Danish Competition

Act/Article 82 EC. In order to remedy the competition concerns identified, Carlsberg

offered to abide by a set of commitments. The Competition Authority found that

Carlsberg’s commitments met the aforementioned competition concerns.

The Danish Competition Authority investigated Carlsberg’s practices in the following

areas: (1) equipment exclusivity and (2) outlet exclusivity. The relevant product market

concerned the sale of branded beer to the Horeca sector. The geographic market com-

prised Denmark. With a market share of around 70% of the Horeca sector, Carlsberg

had a dominant position on the relevant market.

106


Carlsberg’s commitments reduced the termination period for its installation and coo-

peration agreements. Carlsberg also made a commitment, which will enable the instal-

lation of a second beer barrel installation at bar counters. The commitments further-

more concern the possibility of an outlet owner to buy existing beer installations from

Carlsberg, at a pre-determined price. In addition, Carlsberg made various commit-

ments regarding the right to switch supplier, a limit to the overall use of sponsorship

agreements etc.

List of decisions taken under Articles 81/82

Competition Council meeting, 23 February 2005

Post Danmark

Commitment decision following the 2004 Article 82 decision

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/postdanm/

Competition Council meeting, 27 April 2005

Kriterier for optagelse i Rørforeningens vvs-nummersystem og vvs-katalog Article 82

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/roerforen/

Competition Council meeting, 22 June 2005

DBC Medier Article 82

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/dbc/

Dansk Reklame Film Articles 81/82 – commitments

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/

danskreklame/

Competition Council meeting, 26 October 2005

Carlsberg standardaftaler med horeca-sektoren Articles 81/82 – commitments

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/carlsberg/

Competition Council meeting, 30 November 2005

ELSAM A/S misbrug af dominerende stilling i form af høje priser Article 82

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/elsam/

Insolvensaftalen – ulovligt apotekersamarbejde Article 81

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/insolvens/

Competition Council meeting, 21 December 2005

DONG’s aftale med HNG/MN af 7. marts 2003 Articles 81/82 – commitments

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/dong/

TV2’s priser og betingelser Article 82

English press release: http://www.ks.dk/english/competition/national/2005/tv2/

107


GERMANY

• E.ON Ruhrgas

The Federal Cartel Office prohibited E.ON Ruhrgas AG from concluding long-term gas

supply contracts. Through its practice of tying to itself in the long term a large part of

its regional and local gas customers by requiring them to obtain more than 80% of their

supplies from it, E.ON Ruhrgas infringes European and German competition law

(Articles 81, 82 EC, Section 1 GWB). Binding distributors by long-term supply con-

tracts has a foreclosure effect because it prevents the market entry of newcomers and

deprives third-party suppliers of supply opportunities for years to come.

The decision has been appealed against before the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court.

At the same time, the undertaking has applied for annulment of its immediate enforce-

ability.

Press releases

17.01.2006 http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/News/press/2006_01_17.shtml

13.12.2005 http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wEnglisch/News/Archiv/ArchivNews

2005/2005_12_13.shtml


2005/2005_09_27.shtml


2005/2005_04_06.shtml


2005/2005_01_28.shtml

Decision (in German):

http://www.bundeskartellamt.de/wDeutsch/aktuelles/2006_01_19_Kartellrecht.shtml

• EDEKA/ALIDIS

The Federal Cartel Office investigated the acquisition by EDEKA Zentrale AG & Co.

KG of a shareholding in the purchasing and marketing cooperative ALIDIS/Agenor

both under the merger control rules and from the point of view of Article 81 EC. It con-

sidered that the conditions of Article 81(3) EC were met. The investigation was carried

out in connection with the takeover of SPAR Handels AG and Michael Schels & Sohn

GmbH & Co. OHG by the grocery chain EDEKA. EDEKA will in future operate the

cooperative jointly with ITM Entreprises S.A. and Centros Comerciales Ceco S.A.

(EROSKI).

Press release:


2005/2005_09_05.shtml

108


• Deutsche Post

In response to complaints, the Federal Cartel Office prohibited Deutsche Post AG from

hindering or discriminating against rival small and medium-sized providers of postal

services in the area of ‘mail preparation services’ and it ordered the immediate enforce-

ment of the decision. Deutsche Post appealed against both the decision and the order

of immediate enforceability. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court upheld the imme-

diate enforceability order. A judgment on the main issue is still pending.

Mail preparation services involve mainly collecting and pre-sorting letters as well as

feeding letters weighing less than 100 grams into Deutsche Post’s sorting centres.

Deutsche Post currently grants discounts for such services of between 3 and 21% to its

own large customers, but also to PostCon Deutschland as a registered cooperative

society. Through this discounting, however, Deutsche Post prevents competitors

(known as ‘consolidators’) from entering the market for the collection, pre-sorting and

feeding-in of letters. Small and medium-sized enterprises do not as a rule generate the

minimum quantities of mail prescribed by Deutsche Post in order to qualify for the

above discounts. It is only through the activities of consolidators that such enterprises

are able to reduce their mailing costs.

In its examination of the case, the Federal Cartel Office came to the conclusion that this

practice of Deutsche Post infringed German and European competition law (Article 82

EC). In a parallel proceeding, the European Commission found that the German Postal

Act infringed EU law.

Press releases


2005/2005_04_13.shtml


2005/2005_02_14.shtml


2004/2004_11_04.shtml

• Lottery companies

The plan of three lottery companies to jointly acquire a majority shareholding in a com-

pany which, as a commercial lottery agent, provides lotteries and sports betting over the

Internet raised, in the view of the German Cartel Office, competition concerns in res-

pect of both the merger control rules and Article 1 GWB and Article 81 EC. The par-

ties concerned abandoned the project.

• Industrial insurance

In 2005 the Federal Cartel Office imposed fines totalling some EUR 150 million on ten

private and seven public insurance companies and the directors involved. The infringe-

109


ment of competition law (Article 81 EC) had a nationwide and cross-industry effect on,

in particular, the industrial property insurance sector (fire, consequential loss, EC

and all-risk insurances, and technical insurances) as well as the transport insurance and

the buildings/monopoly insurance sector. According to the Federal Cartel Office’s find -

ings, in the middle of 1999 the relevant insurers agreed to put an end to the intense

competition at that time in premiums and conditions and thus cause a turnaround in

the market. The cartel was based on the agreement between the directors of the com-

panies represented in the Special Committee for Industrial Property Insurance (FIS) of

the German Insurance Association (GDV) on the principles governing their future

competitive behaviour in regard to the renewal of contracts (the so-called ‘FIS princi-

ples’). The FIS principles were adapted over time to take account of current market

conditions so as to be able to enforce a uniform level of premium increases, excesses

payable by policyholders as well as other changes to contract terms. This was ensured

by a gentleman’s agreement to the effect that companies would not interfere with com-

petitors’ premium adjustments when renewing contracts by making favourable offers

themselves and that they would not charge less than a minimum premium for new busi-

ness. In the area of transport insurance the parties to the gentleman’s agreement came

to an understanding at least from 2001 onwards that they would impose premium in -

creases and adaptations to conditions on policyholders and that in so doing they would

not undercut or interfere with each other (agreed principle: ‘respect the lead’). The

decisions imposing the fines are not yet final, the parties concerned having appealed

against them. The appeals are being heard by the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court.

Press releases


2005/2005_09_15.shtml


2005/2005_03_23.shtml

ESTONIA

Decisions taken under Articles 81/82 in 2005

Decision No 24-L of 5 May 2005 (Article 82)

An abuse of a dominant position was alleged to have been committed by Estonian Air

with respect to the application of dissimilar pricing conditions with regard to indepen-

dent travel bureaus and its own retail outlets. The Estonian Competition Board consi-

dered that an abuse of a dominant position was not established.

Public version of the decision is available in Estonian (AS Atlas Reisibüroo/AS Estonian

Air) http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/public/documents/Ametlikud_teated/o200524.pdf

110


GREECE

Decisions 277/2005 and 284/2005 taken under Articles 81/82:

http://www.epant.gr/showapof.php3?frmYearInserted=2005

Undertakings involved

(a) Greek Supermarkets’ Association (SESME)

(b) The following supermarkets active in Greece: Veropoulos SA, ATLANTIC SA,

Vassilopoulos SA, METRO SA, Massoutis SA, Sklavenitis SA and TROFINO SA

Alleged infringement

SESME’s managing board sought the uniform application by all supermarkets, which

are members of SESME, of a list which unilaterally set the discount percentage that

should be provided by each supplier to all members of SESME. Furthermore, seven of

the biggest Greek supermarkets (some of them were also members of SESME’s

man aging board) arranged and participated in two meetings in February and April

2004. The objective of these meetings was to agree on measures in order to cope with

competition from big multinational supermarkets (namely Carrefour) and from big

multinational discount stores (namely Lidl and Plus).

Legal assessment

The Hellenic Competition Commission took the view that the recommendation issued

by SESME, which set a fixed amount of discount for each supplier, amounted to a deci-

sion fixing minimum prices. In addition, the Hellenic Competition Commission esta-

blished that the meetings of seven retailers led to cooperation among the participants

on the application of a common policy which aimed to distort and restrict competition

in the relevant market.

Decision

The Hellenic Competition Commission concluded in Decision 277/2005 that SESME’s

recommendation constitutes a decision that infringed Article 1 paragraph 1 of Law

703/1977 and Article 81(1) EC. It also established in supplementary Decision 284/2005

the existence of a concerted practice among the participants in the two meetings and

therefore the infringement of Article 1 paragraph 1 of Law 703/1977 and Article 81(1)

EC. As a result, the Hellenic Competition Commission imposed the following fines:

– SESME EUR 15 000 000

(that is 0.28% of the total turnover of SESME’s members)

– ATLANTIC SA EUR 430 080

– Veropoulos SA EUR 500 713

– Massoutis SA EUR 347 784

– METRO SA EUR 338 201

– Sklavenitis SA EUR 611 844

– TROFINO SA EUR 6 000

– Vassilopoulos SA EUR 721 240

111


SPAIN


• E-S ASEMPRE vs CORREOS

On 21 January 2002, the Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y manipula -

ción de Correspondencia (ASEMPRE) lodged a complaint with the Competition

Service against Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos (CORREOS) alleging the infringe-

ment of Article 6 of the Competition Act and Article 82 EC. The applicant claimed that

CORREOS signed contracts with large clients for the joint provision of postal

services provided in competition with other operators and those reserved by law to

CORREOS, and applied predatory pricing policies through cross-subsidies.

During the investigation, the dossier was split into two cases due to the impossibility of

obtaining data from the cost accounting system as it was not available at that time.

The first dossier was closed by a decision with fines. On 15 September 2004, the

Competition Tribunal handed down Decision 608/04 finding CORREOS to be in

breach of Article 6 of the Competition Act and Article 82 EC by abusing its dominant

position in the regulated postal services market through the signing of exclusive

contracts with large rebates for the joint provision of postal services reserved by law to

CORREOS and other deregulated services. The Tribunal ordered CORREOS to

pay a fine of EUR 15 million and to stop these practices.

The second dossier was closed in September 2005 by a commitments decision. In this

case, the alleged infringements were detected in agreements between CORREOS and

entities such as banks for postal services and consisted of the granting of unfair dis-

counts and the setting of predatory prices for big clients.

The market was defined as the market for the liberalised postal services and for univer-

sal postal services which are not reserved, and the market for reserved universal postal

services, both in the Spanish territory. The commitment decision sets conditions to

ensure that discounted prices always cover costs.

(For more information please see ‘Acuerdo de Terminación convencional

SDC – ASEMPRE – CORREOS’;

http://www.dgdc.meh.es/Acuerdos%20Consejo%20Ministros/2005-09-15_Acuerdo

CorreosAsempre.pdf)

• T-S Grupo Gas Natural

Grupo Gas Natural (GGN), an integrated natural gas undertaking, has a dominant

position on all of the Spanish natural gas markets. In June 2001, two of its subsidiaries,

GNC and ENAGAS, signed a contract that reserved certain re-gasification capacity to

GNC, the supply branch of GGN.

112


The Spanish Competition Court adopted a resolution concluding that GGN infringed

Article 6 of the Spanish Competition Act and Article 82 EC. The Court considered that

GGN abused its dominant position on the Spanish natural gas markets, including the

market consisting of the natural gas basic network to import natural gas to Spain by

reserving, by contract, certain re-gasification capacity to GNC. It found that the exclu-

sive reservation of re-gasification capacity to GNC amounts to discrimination vis-à-vis

the other agents in the system and constitutes the imposition of dissimilar conditions

to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a com -

petitive disadvantage within the meaning of Article 82(c) of the Treaty. ENAGAS is the

owner of the majority of the facilities in the natural gas basic network, including

re-gasification plants. It is legally obliged to give access to these plants to all the agents

of the system, dealing with requests in chronological order of receipt. The Court

imposed a fine of EUR 8 million on Grupo Gas Natural.

(For more information please see Case 580/04 Gas Natural

http://www.tdcompetencia.es/html/resoluciones/2005/2035.htm).

Complete list of decisions taken under Articles 81/82 by the Competition Service and

the Competition Tribunal in 2005:

• E-S ASEMPRE vs CORREOS

(http://www.dgdc.meh.es/Acuerdos%20Consejo%20Ministros/2005-09-15_Acuerdo

CorreosAsempre.pdf;

‘Acuerdo de Terminación convencional SDC – ASEMPRE – CORREOS’).

• Telefonica Moviles, Vodafone, AMENA (no grounds for action). Sociedad General

de Autories y Editores (no grounds for action-procedure).

• Glaxo Wellcome S.A. (no grounds for action-procedure).

• Coca-Cola (no grounds for action-procedure; see also COMP IV/ 39.116).

• T-S Grupo Gas Natural

http://www.tdcompetencia.es/html/resoluciones/2005/2035.htm;

Case 580/04 Gas Natural.

FRANCE


Decision 05-D-12 of 17 March 2005

The companies 20 Minutes and Métro, which publish general-information daily

newspapers that are distributed free of charge and are financed exclusively through

advertising, complained to the Competition Council about a refusal by the association

EUROPQN (which groups together the large national daily newspapers) to include

their publications in its study into the size of the readership of national dailies.

113


They argued that this refusal, which in fact denied them access to the advertising mar-

ket under normal competitive conditions, stemmed both from an agreement aimed at

slowing down their growth and from an abuse of a dominant position. They coupled

their complaint with an application for interim relief.

At a meeting devoted to discussing the interim relief applications by 20 Minutes and

Métro, EUROPQN proposed commitments designed to meet the competition concerns

raised.

Taking these factors into account, and after having received comments from interested

third parties, the Council held that the commitments offered by EUROPQN provided

a satisfactory solution to the competition problem posed. Consequently, it delivered a

decision to accept the commitments and closed the file on the case. This is the first time

the Council has used the commitments procedure.

Decision 05-D-16 of 26 April 2005

SACD (a company in charge of the collective management of rights for dramatic au -

thors and composers) made it compulsory, through a clause in its statutes, for its mem-

bers to combine the management of the rights in their theatrical performances with

that of their audio-visual rights. Authors were thus forced to entrust to SACD the

management of all their rights, without any possibility of splitting them up.

This clause requiring the binding management of all rights thus enabled SACD ‘to use

its monopoly position on the undisputable and inescapable market for audio-visual

rights’ management to consolidate and maintain its monopoly position on the poten -

tially contestable and open market for dramatic works performance rights’ management’.

In fact, since they had no other choice concerning the management of audio-visual

rights, authors were also forced to entrust their theatrical performance rights’ manage-

ment to SACD even though it was not the same market and they could have had them

managed by another collective management society or manage them themselves.

The Council took the view that the commitments entered into by SACD provided a

satisfactory solution to the competition problems posed. SACD undertook to amend its

statutes at its next general meeting so as to permit authors to divide their works into

three different categories: dramatic works, audio-visual works and pictorial works.

However, in order to enable SACD to perform its task of collective management under

conditions of reasonable economic equilibrium, this dividing option will be subject to

certain restrictions:

– certain categories of work cannot be withdrawn during the author’s lifetime until the

end of each two-year period calculated from the date of the author’s membership or

the date of change of his contributions;

114


– the total or partial withdrawal of a given category of work cannot be effected more

than three times during an author’s lifetime.

This balance was considered to comply with the principles laid down by EC case-law,

according to which the freedom of authors who may wish to manage some rights in -

dividually has to be reconciled with the ability of a collective management society to

operate satisfactorily for the benefit of its members.

Decision 05-D-63 of 17 November 2005

The Competition Council held that the La Poste group had abused its dominant posi-

tion by failing to uphold the principle of non-discrimination in the application of its

charges to the benefit of certain mail senders and of its own subsidiary Datapost. By

applying its bulk mailing charges to certain customers in a discriminatory fashion, La

Poste distorted competition between mail consolidators inasmuch as they did not

obtain the same conditions from one zone to another. In some cases, La Poste itself or

its subsidiary Datapost profited from these discriminatory pricing practices.

The Council considered these practices to be serious. Mail consolidation is dependent

on La Poste since the company’s monopoly on the basic postal service means it trans-

ports and distributes all mail. As a company holding a monopoly on the basic postal

service and an operator that regulates access to this service unilaterally, La Poste has a

special obligation to act with prudence and vigilance and to scrupulously respect pri-

ces. This is particularly true since the company is in a position to abuse its dominant

position on the adjacent market for mail consolidation, in which it is also present, either

directly or via its subsidiaries. However, the Council found that these practices did not

form part of a deliberate and global strategy on the part of La Poste to evict consolida-

tors from the market. Several items of correspondence substantiate the fact that La

Poste did not seek to encourage this system and that, on several occasions, it actually

made clear its wish that it should not continue. For this reason, the Council limited the

fine to EUR 1 million.

Cartels

Decision 05-D-10 of 15 March 2005

The Competition Council imposed fines totalling EUR 45 000 on Cerafel, the econ omic

agricultural committee for fruit and vegetables in Brittany, and a number of producers’

associations for engaging in anticompetitive practices in the cauliflower wholesale

market in Brittany.

At the time of the facts, France was the second largest producer of cauliflowers in

Europe. Between 50 and 60% of the cauliflowers produced were exported to Germany,

the UK and the Netherlands.

115


The cauliflower distribution chain is structured around government-recognised produ-

cers’ associations. Centralising over 90% of production, these associations are all mem-

bers of the same regional economic committee, Cerafel.

The main mechanism by which cauliflowers grown in Brittany are put on the market is

the clock auction (a type of reverse auction). To access the auctions, dealer-shippers

must be officially approved.

In its analysis, the Council emphasised that the conditions imposed upon companies

seeking approval for the auctions managed by SICA Saint-Pol-de-Léon, UCPT and

SIPEFEL had already been condemned by the European Commission in 1977; this is

because they contain an obligation on companies to purchase exclusively on the mar-

kets controlled by Cerafel, to own a packaging store in the auction site’s zone and to

purchase, work and ship on their own behalf only.

These practices contravene the French and European competition rules in so far as they

serve to restrict, prevent or control new shippers’ access to auctions in Brittany.

Decision 05-D-38 of 5 July 2005

The Competition Council issued a decision penalising the companies Kéolis, Connex

and Transdev for entering into a nationwide anticompetitive agreement between 1996

and 1998. The purpose of the agreement was to divide up public transport markets

(urban bus services) during calls for tenders launched by local and regional administra-

tions.

It was observed that the directors of these national and international transport compa-

nies formed a cartel, with the intention of dividing up the French national market for

public passenger urban transport. Under the rules of conduct adopted by the cartel, the

three companies in question refrained from competing whenever a contract held by any

of them came up for renewal.

These anticompetitive practices enabled the companies to impose their prices on local

and regional administrations. Consequently, when granting concessions for the run-

ning of their transport networks, the administrations were forced to bear higher costs

than if the market had been open to competition.

This national agreement, organised by parent companies which closely monitored the

activity of their subsidiaries, clearly affected local public transport contracts in several

French towns and cities.

The Council considered that the formation of a cartel in an oligopolistic market, and

the resulting monopoly rent (in this case financed by administrations’ public funds), is

one of the most serious anticompetitive practices. It therefore decided to impose on the

three companies concerned fines totalling EUR 12 million.

116


A national cartel of this kind is, by definition, likely to have a substantial impact on

intra-Community trade by virtue of its magnitude and its very purpose: to prevent

competitors, whether national or foreign, from winning contracts. This decision by the

Competition Council was upheld in its entirety by the Paris Court of Appeal on

7 February 2006.

Decision 05-D-65 of 30 November 2005

The Competition Council fined the three mobile telephony operators Orange France,

SFR and Bouygues Télécom for engaging in two kinds of anticompetitive agreement

that distorted competition in the market. Every month between 1997 and 2003, the

mobile operators exchanged detailed and confidential information on the numbers of

new customers signed up the previous month, and the numbers of people who opted to

cancel their subscriptions.

The Council considered that, although the operators’ decision to share this informa tion

had no bearing on their future pricing strategies, it was nonetheless likely to reduce

competition in the mobile phone market, a market which is difficult to penetrate.

The Council also found that, between 2000 and 2002, the three operators entered into

an agreement aimed at stabilising the development of their respective shares of the mar-

ket. It uncovered a number of pieces of serious, specific and corroborating evidence

pointing to the existence of such an agreement. These included handwritten documents

with explicit references to an ‘agreement’ between the three operators, the ‘pacification

of the market’ and the ‘Yalta of market share’. Certain similarities were also observed in

the commercial policies implemented by the operators during this period. In the

medium term, this collusion served to maintain the three operators’ share of new sub-

scription sales at relatively stable levels, and also paved the way for them to alter their

strategy from 2000 onwards. Up until then, the mobile operators had relied on acquir -

ing market share to ensure their growth, which required considerable investment. From

2000 onwards, a period which coincided with the end of the race to acquire market

share, the three operators simultaneously adopted strategies aimed at consolidating

their existing customer bases. This led, among other things, to a hike in prices and the

adoption of measures such as giving priority to contracts with commitments over pay-

as-you-go cards, or the introduction of billing per 30-second increments after a mini-

mum first minute. The Council considered these practices to be particularly serious as

they had caused significant damage to the economy and to consumers. It imposed fines

totalling EUR 534 million: EUR 256 million on Orange France, EUR 220 million on

SFR and EUR 58 million on Bouygues Télécom.

Decision 05-D-70 of 19 December 2005

The Competition Council issued a decision imposing penalties on the company BVHE

(Buena Vista Home Entertainment), the exclusive distributor of Disney video cassettes

in France, the retailers Casino and Carrefour and the wholesaler SDO (Selection Disc

Organisation), for engaging in a price-fixing agreement on the retail price between

1995 and 1998.

117


BVHE instigated a vertical agreement with the retailers Casino and Carrefour and the

wholesaler SDO, with the aim of fixing the retail price of Disney video cassettes at an

artificially high level. This practice was complemented by a common policy on collec-

ting, sharing and monitoring information aimed at consolidating the system. The effect

of the agreement was to raise the retail prices of Disney children’s video cassettes in all

the stores concerned to the same level.

The Council emphasised that the offending practices were particularly serious in so far

as they deprived consumers of the opportunity to acquire the products concerned at a

lower price, i.e. that which would have resulted from proper price competition between

the distribution networks. These practices were all the more serious since they were

committed by a major international group (Disney), whose behaviour is likely to set the

standard for the sector. The company also occupies a very strong position on the mar-

ket concerned, since Disney video cassettes are in constant demand.

The fines imposed on BVHE and Carrefour were reduced by approximately 25% and

40% respectively from their actual theoretical amounts, as the companies agreed not to

dispute the objections stated against them, and also gave commitments regarding their

future behaviour that were likely to restore proper price competition to the market.


Decision 05-D-72 of 20 December 2005

Following a referral by several exporting companies regarding practices implemented

by 21 pharmaceutical laboratories, the Competition Council held that there were no

grounds for action (‘decision de non-lieu’) on the grounds that the behaviour con -

cerned by the complaint could not be qualified as abuse of a dominant position under

French and EC competition law.

‘Parallel trade in pharmaceuticals’ is based on the existence of different prices for medi-

cines between European countries. It refers to trading in medicines between whole -

saler-exporters and importers in different countries, as opposed to the sale of pharma-

ceuticals in different countries by the laboratories themselves, either directly or via local

subsidiaries. The products concerned by parallel trade are mainly patented compounds,

for which there is a substantial difference (at least 15%) between the regulated price in

force in the State from which the products are exported and the price in force in the

countries where they are consumed. The price level of French medicines is close to the

European average. However, it is more than 20% lower than those charged in the United

Kingdom and Germany, to the extent that France is an export base for both these mar-

kets.

A number of French companies have based their business exclusively on exports, pur-

chasing pharmaceuticals from laboratories in France at an ‘administered’ price, and

then selling them on abroad at a higher price.

118


These companies had complained that the pharmaceutical laboratories had subjected

them to delivery restrictions, discriminatory conditions and refusal to sell products.

The complainants ascribed these practices to two things: firstly, agreements, between

the laboratories themselves, and between the laboratories and wholesaler-distributors;

and, secondly, an abuse of a dominant position by the laboratories.

The Council’s decision only covers the case of pure exporters.

List of decisions taken under Articles 81/82 by the French Competition Council in 2005

Decision No Practices Area of activity Type of decisionand date and/or undertakings

05-D-70 Cartel Civilian arms and ammunition Financial penaltiesof 24 February 2005 (Browning Winchester France)

05-D-10 Cartel Cauliflower market Financial penaltiesof 15 March 2005 (SICA, UCPT and SIPEFEL)

05-D-12 Cartel and Regional daily press Commitmentsof 17 March 2005 abuse of a 20 Minutes/Metro v EUROPQN

dominant position

05-D-16 Abuse of a Société des auteurs et compositeurs Commitmentsof 26 April 2005 dominant dramatiques (SACD)

position

05-D-38 Cartel Public transport Financial penaltiesof 5 July 2005 (Kéolis, Connex, Transdev)

05-D-40 Cartel GIE Cartes bancaires No grounds for actionof 13 July 2005

05-D-49 Collective Mailing machines Financial penaltiesof 28 July 2005 vertical

agreement and abuse of a dominant position

05-D-54 Abuse of a Géosys v Spot Image-Scot, CNES No grounds forof 6 October 2005 dominant (Aerial or satellite photographs) action

05-D-55 Cartel Production of essential oils from Financial penaltiesof 12 October 2005 lavender and lavandin (CIHEF)

05-D-63 Abuse of a Postal sector Financial penaltiesof 17 November 2005 dominant (La Poste group)

position

05-D-65 Cartel Mobile telephony (Orange France, Financial penaltiesof 30 November 2005 SFR, Bouygues Télécom)

05-D-70 Cartel Pre-recorded video cassettes Financial penaltiesof 19 December 2005 (BVHE, Casino, Carrefour, SDO)

05-D-72 Cartel and Exporting wholesalers No groundsof 20 December 2005 abuse of a v Pharmaceutical laboratories for action

dominant position

119


These decisions and the press releases relating thereto can be consulted on the

Competition Council’s website: www.conseil-concurrence.fr.

IRELAND


The Competition Authority v. Irish Dental Association

The Competition Authority accepted settlement terms on 28 April 2005 offered by the

Irish Dental Association in the High Court action taken by the Authority. Legal pro-

ceedings were initiated by the Competition Authority following allegations of a collec-

tive boycott of a private dental insurance scheme being introduced in Ireland by Vhi

DeCare contrary to Article 81 EC and Section 4 of the Competition Act 2002. The

terms of the final settlement were read out in court by counsel on behalf of the

Competition Authority. The full text of the settlement terms is as follows:

‘The Competition Authority has brought proceedings alleging a breach of Section 4(1)

of the Act and Article 81(1) and without admission of liability on the part of the Irish

Dental Association Limited (“the Irish Dental Association”) the parties have agreed to

the following:

(1) The Irish Dental Association is happy to acknowledge and agrees to confirm to its

members in writing within 28 days that it is for individual dentists to manage their

own commercial affairs on an individual basis with regard to dealings with Vhi

DeCare or similar dental insurance providers, and that this supersedes any previous

communication by the Irish Dental Association on this issue.

(2) The Irish Dental Association agrees that it will not issue any communications to its

members who instruct individual dentists to adopt a policy of non-cooperation

with Vhi DeCare or other private dental insurance providers in breach of competi-

tion law.

(3) This will be made a rule of court with liberty to both parties to re-enter the present

proceedings and/or to apply in respect of the aforesaid ruling.

(4) Each party will bear its own costs in relation to these proceedings.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the term “Irish Dental Association” where used herein

includes servants or agents (including sub-committees) of the “Irish Dental

Association”.’

Only the national courts may take decisions as to whether a breach of national law

and/or an infringement of the EC Treaty have occurred. The Competition Authority is

responsible for the investigation of competition cases. The Competition Authority may

institute civil proceedings (in which it acts as the plaintiff) and the Competition

Authority and/or the DPP may prosecute criminal competition cases.

120


ITALY

Cartels

Decision of 12 October 2005 – prices for baby milk

In October 2005, the Italian Competition Authority concluded an investigation into

seven suppliers of baby milk in Italy (Heinz Italy, Plada, Nestlé Italy, Nutricia, Milupa,

Humana Italy and Milte Italy) by finding that they had engaged in price-fixing con trary

to Article 81 EC. Pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Italian

Competition Authority asked the French, German and Spanish antitrust authorities to

inspect the premises of some of the firms against which proceedings had been opened.

The investigation showed: (1) a significant difference between the prices for baby milk

in Italy and those observed in other European countries for the same brand/quantity

(the prices of baby milk in Italy were in most cases 150% higher than those in other EU

Member States: in the case of new born formula, prices were three times higher than

those in the lowest-price country, while for follow-on products they were twice as high);

(2) the absence of a sound and objective justification for such high prices; (3) the use

by all producers of recommended prices for pharmacies and the wide availability of

these price lists on the web; (4) the agreement of suppliers to reduce prices upon

invitation by the Health Minister; (5) the very limited amount of sales by large-scale

distributors; and (6) the absence of any parallel imports from low-price EU countries.

The anticompetitive arrangement had a number of features. First of all, throughout the

whole period under investigation, suppliers recommended retail prices to pharmacists

(which the latter abided by) and listed these prices on the pharmaceutical wholesalers’

websites, thereby making them available to all suppliers. Furthermore, in 2004, foll -

owing a request by the Minister for Health to reduce baby milk prices, the companies

adopted a common approach aimed at maintaining as far as possible the pre-existing

high-price regime and making sure that price reductions would be coordinated. Indeed

during March and April 2004 in special meetings at the headquarters of the manufac-

turers’ association, following the Health Minister’s initial invitation to reduce prices, the

suppliers informed one another of how they intended to react. They then jointly

devised the best way to reduce prices, but on condition that this would not disrupt the

‘stability’ of the market. The investigation proved that producers agreed that nobody

would reduce prices by more than 10%.

The Authority considered that the direct contacts among producers following the

Health Minister’s invitation to reduce prices and the fact that they agreed not to re duce

prices by more than 10% was direct proof of collusion. Furthermore, the fact that in

their meetings to discuss how to reduce prices the baby milk producers referred to the

notion of market disruption convinced the Authority that the widespread information

on retail prices made available through the web was an important instrument for moni-

toring each other’s conduct in order to support the high-price collusive strategy.

121


The above concerted practices had the effect of keeping baby milk prices in Italy at sig-

nificantly high levels to the detriment of consumers. Furthermore, producers were able

to ensure the stability of their market shares throughout 2003-2004. The Authority

ordered the companies to cease and desist from the infringement and imposed on them

an overall fine of EUR 10 million. An appeal is still pending.

Decision of 30 November 2005 – insurance surveyors’ fees

In November 2005, the Italian Competition Authority concluded enforcement proceed-

ings initiated in July 2004, pursuant to Article 81 EC, against ANIA (the national asso-

ciation of insurance companies) and the six largest insurance surveyors’ associations in

Italy (the surveyor investigates insurance claims to ensure that they are not fraudulent).

The investigation concerned two different violations of Article 81 EC:

(1) an agreement between ANIA and the six main insurance surveyors’ associations to

fix the fees of surveyors’ services regarding car accidents;

(2) various measures which sought to encourage the use by insurance companies of a

uniform system for calculating repair costs for damage to property (the agreement

envisaged the use of a standard form provided by ANIA and the application of cost

parameters defined in an agreement between ANIA and car repairers, such as the

price of original replacement parts (if used), the time to repair and replace vehicles,

and the cost of labour).

Regarding the first violation, the sector-specific legislation provides that the insurance

surveyors’ fees are determined as a result of a complex process which involves the inter-

vention of a public body. However, this process had never been completed and the

Authority found that the scope for autonomous behaviour by the parties was sufficient-

ly wide to establish their direct responsibility for the restrictive conduct. For the first

violation an overall fine of EUR 202 800 was imposed on ANIA and the relevant sur-

veyors’ associations.

As regards the second violation, ANIA had encouraged the use of a uniform system in

order to calculate the repair costs for property damage. Repair costs account for a

significant share of insurance companies’ payments for car accidents, and ANIA’s con-

duct was thus held to affect one of the most important competitive variables of the car

liability insurance market, in violation of Article 81 EC. For this second violation, a fine

of EUR 2 000 000 was imposed on ANIA. An appeal is still pending.

122


Complete list of decisions taken under Articles 81/82 in 2005

Article 81 Article 82 Press releases Weekly bulletin(in English www.agcm.it) (in Italian www.agcm.it)

Decision of 25 August 2005 – No 39, 30 August 2005 32-33-34/2005

API-ENI

Decision of 12 October 2005 – No 49, 20 October 2005 40/2005

prices for baby milk

Decision of 30 November 2005 – No 56, 12 December 2005 48/2005

insurance surveyors’ fees

LITHUANIA


On 22 December 2005, the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania took a

decision under Article 9 of the Lithuanian Law on Competition and Article 82 of the

EC Treaty against AB ‘Mazeikiu nafta’, the single refinery in three Baltic States, for abu-

sing its dominant position on the Lithuanian fuel market and on the fuel market of

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It imposed a fine of EUR 9.275 million on the company

as well as ordering it to cease its illegal activities.

The Competition Council concluded that AB ‘Mazeikiu nafta’ had abused its dominant

position by grouping customers on a territorial basis and applying discriminatory dis-

counts and rebates schemes; by using discriminatory rebates in agreements with

wholesale customers; and by imposing selling conditions and quantity obligations in

these agreements with wholesale customers thereby placing them at a competitive

disadvantage. The activities of AB ‘Mazeikiu nafta’ affected both imports to the

relevant petrol and diesel fuel markets of the three Baltic States and cross-border trade

between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, thus influencing the commercial decisions of

the main potential importers of refined petrol products operating in the said markets.

Consequently, final consumers of the three Baltic States had no possibility to choose

between various kinds of imported petrol and diesel fuel.

In the course of the investigation there was close cooperation and exchange of informa-

tion with ECN competition authorities – Estonia, Latvia and Poland.

HUNGARY


(1) The Competition Office initiated proceedings because the warranty rules applied

by Hewlett Packard Magyarország Kft. (HP) relating to its printers were alleged to

constitute an abuse of a dominant position under the national Competition Act and

Article 82 EC and consumer fraud. According to the warranty rules, if the failure

of the printer was the result of incorrect use, the warranty did not apply. In the

123


Hungarian version of the rules, however, it was also stated that the application of

refilled or remanufactured inkjets qualified as incorrect use, giving the impression

that the use of such accessories in itself led to the loss of the warranty. The case was

partially reallocated to the European Commission, since the Commission also dealt

with certain aspects of the practice and it extended, as a result of the reallocation

consultation, the scope of its investigations also to the new Member States. The

Competition Office continued its investigations in respect of the Hungary-specific

elements of the case.

In its decision, the Competition Office considered that the appropriate interpreta-

tion of the rules was that the application of non-HP inkjets was qualified by HP as

‘incorrect use’. However as it was not ‘incorrect use’ as such but only failures deri-

ving from ‘incorrect use’ which resulted in the termination of the warranty, the

warranty rules did not qualify as a tying of the free repair service to the purchase

of HP’s own secondary products. On the other hand, the qualification of the use of

competing secondary products as ‘incorrect’ was misleading as consumers could

interpret it as meaning they must not buy non-HP secondary products. Having

regard to the insignificant effect of the fraudulent behaviour on competition, the

Competition Office, although it had established the infringement, ordered the

suspension of the proceedings for a period of one month. HP was ordered to

amend the wording of the warranty by the end of this period and to inform the

consumers about the changes and the reasons for them in two national newspapers.

After the expiry of this deadline, the Competition Office established that HP had

fulfilled its obligations and terminated the proceedings.

(2) Due to their exclusive nature, agreements concluded between Aréna Rt (the con-

trolling company of the Budapest Sport Stadium), Multimedia Light and Sound

Kft. (a concert promoter) and Ticketpro Kft. (a ticket distributor) were subject to

an investigation initiated by the Competition Office. According to their annual ren-

tal agreement, Multimedia received special privileged status from Aréna (e.g. spe-

cial treatment concerning payments: after 10 cultural events (entertainment) the

11th event was free of charge; Multimedia received the title of ‘Aréna’s first part -

ner’, etc.). The exclusivity clause in the agreement between Aréna and Ticketpro (in

which Multimedia held significant business interests) meant in practice that if any

concert promoter intended to organise an event in the Budapest Sport Stadium,

Aréna could only sign an agreement with that concert promoter if it could oblige

the concert promoter to engage the services of Ticketpro. This arrangement gave

Multimedia a further unfair advantage over its competitors in addition to its privi-

leged status. The Competition Office held that the agreements jointly exerted a dis-

torting effect on competition. However, having regard to the fact that the contracts

under investigation had been terminated before any decision was issued, and in

view of the minor magnitude of the distorting effect, no fine was imposed. In the

decision the Competition Office simply declared that the complex contractual

arrangements between the abovementioned three undertakings were incompatible

with the common market.

124


(3) The Competition Office initiated two separate proceedings against UNILEVER

Magyarország Kft. and Globus Konzervipari Rt for their alleged abuse of a domi-

nant position. Both firms restructured their distribution system by entrusting the

same undertakings with the distribution of their deep frozen products, ice creams

and vegetables. After the reshaping of this joint distribution system, three under -

takings, which were members of the network previously, were no longer supplied.

The Competition Office established that there were no grounds for action con -

cerning the alleged abuse as neither UNILEVER Magyarország Kft. nor Globus

Konzervipari Rt was dominant on the relevant market. The market was defined

according to EC case-law and the Commission notices on the relevant market and

on vertical agreements. This led to a definition which took into account the prefer -

ences of distributors, rather than merely those of end consumers. This was due to

the fact that the distributors, which were also carriers of the products, could easily

substitute in their carrier-capacity, one frozen product with another. Moreover,

Unilever and Globus were unlikely to be dominant on the narrower market, name-

ly on that of ice creams and frozen vegetables.

(4) Based on an application for individual exemption under national law (this right still

existed at the time the application was submitted), the Competition Office initiated

proceedings against the Rába Group and Integris, and examined whether their

entering into a nine-year exclusive agreement restricted competition. A parallel ex

officio proceeding was also initiated under Article 81 EC in order to meet the

requirements of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The nine-year period

contracted was split up into phases of three years, with the switch to the next phase

being subject to renegotiation. This clause was clearly included in order to ensure

the agreement did not fall outside the scope of the vertical block exemption

Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 which limits the period of exclusivity to five years.

However it was clear from other clauses of the agreement that the renegotiation was

intended to be purely formal in nature and that the Rába Group had no real

possibility to exit the agreement before the end of the nine-year period. The

Competition Office considered that the agreement did not fall within the scope

of Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999. On the other hand it was established that

under both national competition law and under Article 81(3) EC, the agreement

was exempted from the general prohibition. Consequently, the national proceeding

was closed by the granting of an individual exemption while the other proceeding

based on EC law was terminated, as there was no ground for action.

125


NETHERLANDS

Cartels

Sanctions in the construction industry

In recent years the Netherlands Competition Authority has conducted investigations

into infringements of the prohibition on cartels in various sub-sectors of the construc-

tion industry. In response to appeals by the Netherlands Competition Authority and the

government to construction companies to ‘come clean’, a large number of companies

voluntarily provided information on cartel activities. In October 2004 the Netherlands

Competition Authority concluded its investigations into the civil engineering and

infrastructure sub-sector with a report (statement of objections). The investigations

into the installation engineering sub-sector were concluded in April 2005. In both

sub-sectors, cartel structures were exposed which involved a general system of

bid-rigging. Investigations in other sub-sectors were concluded in autumn 2005.

The Netherlands Competition Authority developed a special ‘accelerated’ (fast-lane)

sanctions procedure specifically for the construction industry in view of the large num-

ber of companies involved and the widespread willingness to come clean quickly. This

accelerated procedure is only open to companies which do not dispute the existence of

the exposed cartel structures and their participation therein. Companies which choose

to take part in the accelerated procedure receive a 15% reduction in their fine (the com-

panies involved retain the possibility to appeal). Companies which choose not to

partici pate in the accelerated procedure are subject to the standard sanctions proce -

dure, as set out in Sections 59 to 61 of the Netherlands Competition Act.

Civil engineering and infrastructure sub-sector

In the civil engineering and infrastructure sub-sector, 90% of 380 companies chose to

participate in the accelerated procedure and received a decision imposing a fine. The

accelerated procedure in this sub-sector was concluded in March 2005 with fines of

approximately EUR 100 million being imposed. The standard sanctions procedure is

still ongoing.

Installation engineering sub-sector

In the installation engineering sub-sector, 88% of 180 companies chose to participate in

the accelerated procedure, which was concluded in October 2005. Fines of approximat -

ely EUR 40 million were imposed. The standard sanctions procedure is still in process.

Case summary – Case 2021 OSB

The Netherlands Competition Authority found that OSB, the association of cleaning

agencies in the Netherlands, advised its members once every year between 1998 and

2000 to increase price levels by a certain percentage. The percentages were determined

by the board of OSB on the basis of information on the development of cost levels.

126


Furthermore, in mid-2000, OSB advised its members to implement an additional rise

in prices.

The Netherlands Competition Authority concluded that OSB thus infringed Section 6(1)

of the Competition Act and Article 81(1) EC. This finding was upheld in the admin -

istrative appeal and a fine of EUR 2 000 000 was imposed on OSB.

The Netherlands Competition Authority – in accordance with the advice of the

Advisory Committee – has in the administrative appeal procedure decided that on the

basis of the evidence available the file does not contain sufficient proof that CSU, Asito

and GOM, three cleaning agencies whose employees were – among others – members

of the Board of OSB, infringed Section 6(1) of the Competition Act. The imposition of

fines on these companies has been revoked as it was not proven that CSU, GOM and

Asito initiated plans concerning the additional rise in prices in mid-2000 and then play-

ed an active and particular role in preparing the advice which OSB gave to its members.

Case summary – 2910 Interpay

This case concerned the joint venture, Interpay, which was created by eight Dutch

banks to manage a debit card system called ‘PIN’. In addition to the provision of ser-

vices such as clearing and settlement, Interpay, through a wholly owned subsidiary,

Beanet, directly signed up merchants for credit card acceptance and thereby provided a

payment guarantee to the merchants for each transaction that had been authorised by

Interpay.

Fines were imposed by the Netherlands Competition Authority in respect of excessive

pricing by Interpay and the selling of network services as a cooperative joint venture.

This decision was taken on the basis of Dutch competition law as it was prior to the

entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. However, an administrative review pro-

cedure was subsequently commenced after 1 May 2004 before the Board of the

Netherlands Competition Authority which takes account of EC competition law. The

excessive pricing case against Interpay was then dropped as part of a gentleman’s

agreement following a settlement in a retailer’s lawsuit against Interpay and its

shareholder banks in which the banks agreed to lower their prices by a minimum of 20%.

It was found that the concentration of the financial aspects of payment card acquiring

within the hands of a single inter-bank entity excludes competition between banks for

acquiring merchants contrary to Article 81 EC (application of EC competition law to a

vertically integrated payment cards industry).

The Netherlands Competition Authority decided to lower the fines imposed on the

shareholders to EUR 14 000 000 in total. The reason for this reduction in the fines was

the establishment of a fund conducive to socially efficient money transfer, in which they

deposited EUR 10 000 000 in total.

127


Case summary – 1615 Bicycle producers

In his decision of 21 April 2004, the Director-General of the Netherlands Competition

Authority imposed sanctions on the three biggest bicycle producers in the Netherlands

(joint market share of approximately 80% (sales of 2000) on the Dutch bicycle market)

for a violation of Section 6 of the Dutch Competition Act (similar to Article 81 EC).

Accell (through its subsidiaries Batavus and Koga), Gazelle and Giant had two meetings

about their (future) pricing strategy in the bicycle season 2001. The infringement took

place from 1 September 2000 to 1 September 2001. The Director-General imposed fines

of EUR 12 809 000, 12 898 000 and 3 978 000 respectively. The bicycle producers

appealed. According to Dutch administrative law, (now) the Board of the Netherlands

Competition Authority has to reconsider the decision of the Director-General in an

administrative review procedure, before the parties can challenge the decision in court.

In its decision of 24 November 2005 the Board dismissed most of the parties’ objec -

tions. It applied Article 81 EC to the infringement, which was not the case in the con-

tested decision as it was taken prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

Because of a violation of the rights of the defence, the Board granted the parties a 10%

decrease in the fines. The fines after administrative review were as follows: Accell: EUR

11 528 000, Gazelle: EUR 11 608 000, Giant: EUR 3 421 000. The decision is now being

challenged in court.

Case summary – 3353 CR Delta

In his decision of 31 December 2003, the Director-General of the Netherlands

Competition Authority imposed sanctions on CR Delta for a violation of Section 24 of

the Dutch Competition Act (similar to Article 82 EC) because of three rebate systems

that, both separately and together, constitute an abuse of a dominant position. CR Delta

is a supplier of breeding bull sperm whose customers are cattle breeders. The so-called

‘quantity rebates’ it granted were not ‘invoice rebates’ but were paid at the end of a

reference period of one year, the rate increasing gradually (1-5%) according to the

quantities purchased. The discount was calculated according to the customer’s entire

turnover of breeding bull sperm with CR Delta. The second rebate system (1-2%) was

granted in return for an undertaking given by the customer to obtain his stock of breed -

ing bull sperm (almost) exclusively (90-100%) from CR Delta. The third rebate system

involved a discount of 10% on the customer’s purchases of classified breeding bull

sperm when the customer agrees to test unclassified breeding bull sperm. CR Delta’s

market share on the relevant market is approximately 80%. The infringement took place

from 1 September 2001 to 1 September 2003. The Director-General imposed a fine of

EUR 2 600 000 and two orders. CR Delta appealed. In the subsequent administrative

review procedure, the Board of the Netherlands Competition Authority dismissed all of

the party’s objections. In view of the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003,

Article 82 EC was applied to the infringement, which was not the case in the original

decision. The case is now under review by the Dutch Competition Court.

128


Complete list of decisions taken under Articles 81/82 in 2005

Construction sector

• http://www.nmanet.nl/engels/home/news_and_publications/

news_and_press_releases/2005/05-40_bouw.asp


news_and_press_releases/2005/05-32.asp


news_and_press_releases/2005/05_29_installatie.asp


news_and_press_releases/2005/05_13.asp







OSB

http://www.nmanet.nl/engels/home/news_and_publications/


Interpay

http://www.nmanet.nl/engels/home/news_and_publications/news_and_press_releases/

2005/nma_reviews_fines_imposed_on_banks_and_interpay.asp

Bicycle producers

http://www.nmanet.nl/engels/home/news_and_publications/news_and_press_

releases/2005/nma_confirms_infringement_of_prohibition_on_cartels_by_

bicycle_manufacturers.asp

CR Delta

http://www.nmanet.nl/nederlands/home/besluiten/besluiten_2005/3353bbs.asp

129


AUSTRIA


Fee scale for building engineers

In June 2004 the BWB (and the Federal Attorney-General for Cartel Cases) applied to

the Cartel Court for the revocation of the building engineers’ fee scale

(Honorarordnung der Baumeister (HOB)) following wide-ranging investigations. In this

case the fee scale was entered in the cartel register as a non-binding recommendation

of an association laying down prices for specific activities.

The Competition Authority considered that the fee scale was incompatible with Article

81 EC. Following an extensive inquiry, the Cartel Court ordered by decision of 14 April

2005 the Construction Industry Association to revoke the fee scale because – following

the line of argument put forward by the BWB and the Federal Attorney-General for

Cartel Cases – it had come to the conclusion that it was in breach of European cartel

law. The Supreme Cartel Court upheld this decision.

Other enforcement activities

Lufthansa/Austrian travel agencies

On 1 November 2004 Lufthansa announced an overhaul of its sales system and the

introduction of a net price model. As a result travel agencies were no longer paid a basic

commission. Travel agencies were free, however, to levy their own service charges on

customers. When to charge a service charge, and how much, was left to individual tra-

vel agencies.

The Association of Travel Agencies petitioned the Cartel Court in November 2004

arguing that abolition of the commission combined with Lufthansa’s requirement that

the net price appear on the flight ticket should be outlawed as price fixing. The appli -

cation was rejected: the Court considered that Article 81 EC was applicable since the

sales system was used in several EU Member States, but that there was no unlawful price

fixing. The travel contract was concluded directly between Lufthansa and the customer,

and only for this transport contract did Lufthansa fix a selling price. The travel agency

was only executing a declaration of interest on behalf of the customer. It was left to the

discretion of the travel agency whether and how much to charge for its advisory service.

Travel agencies were not therefore restricted in their competitive freedom of action.

Articles 81- and 82-related decisions of the Cartel Court

– Building engineers’ fee scale

– Lufthansa/Austrian travel agencies

– Redmail - Logistik & Zustellservice GmbH/Österreichische Post AG

– Synchron Film & Video Bearbeitungs GesmbH/da Vinci Systems, LLC; Datim

GmbH*

(*ended by a settlement between the parties)

Link to activity report of the BWB (all except Synchron Film et al.):

http://www.bwb.gv.at/BWB/Service/Taetigkeitsberichte/taetigkeitsbericht.htm

130


PORTUGAL


Portuguese Veterinarians’ Association

The Veterinarian Professional Association adopted a Deontological Code in 1996, pres-

cribing that services performed in independent practice by a veterinarian (including

from other Member States of the European Union) must be charged in accordance with

a minimum fee established by the National Veterinarians’ Union.

The Portuguese Competition Authority found the Portuguese Veterinarians’

Association guilty of establishing an obligation to charge minimum fees contrary to

Article 81 EC and fined it a total of approximately EUR 76 000 in a decision taken on

19 May 2005. In view of the gravity of the infringement, the offender was obliged to

publish the decision in the official gazette and in a Portuguese newspaper with national

circulation. Furthermore, the Veterinarians’ Association had to advertise the measures

adopted on its website and in a periodical review within 15 days.

The Portuguese Competition Authority takes the view that the establishment of an obli-

gation to charge minimum fees by the Veterinarians’ Association cannot be considered

as necessary in order to ensure the proper practice of the veterinarian independent acti-

vity within the meaning of the Wouters judgment (C-309/99).

This was the Portuguese Competition Authority’s first decision involving an infringe-

ment of the competition rules set out in the EC Treaty issued under the new decen-

tralised system for applying Community competition rules.

An appeal against this decision was lodged at the Lisbon Commercial Court (the

Court’s decision is expected in early 2006).

Portuguese Dental Association

The Portuguese Dental Association adopted a Deontological Code prescribing that ser-

vices performed in independent practice by a dentist must be charged in accordance

with a minimum and maximum fee established by this Association.

The Portuguese Competition Authority (PCA) found the Portuguese Dental

Association guilty of establishing an obligation to charge minimum and maximum fees

contrary to Article 81 EC and fined it a total of approximately EUR 160 000 in a deci-

sion taken on 30 June 2005. Considering the gravity of the infringement, the offender

was obliged to publish the decision in the official gazette and in a Portuguese news -

paper with national circulation. Furthermore, the Portuguese Dental Association had to

advertise the measures adopted on its website and in a periodical review within 20 days.

The Portuguese Competition Authority takes the view that the establishment of an

obligation to charge minimum fees by the Portuguese Dental Association cannot be

131


considered as an overriding reason justified by the public interest within the meaning

of the Wouters ruling.

An appeal against this decision was made to the Lisbon Commercial Court (see under

‘Application of the EC competition rules by national courts’).

List of decisions taken under Articles 81/82 in 2005

Portuguese Veterinarians’ Association

http://www.autoridadedaconcorrencia.pt/vImages/pressrelease07_2005.pdf


http://www.autoridadedaconcorrencia.pt/vImages/pressrelease08_2005.pdf

Recommendation No 1/2005 – Gas sector

http://www.autoridadedaconcorrencia.pt/vImages/recomendacao1_2005.pdf

Recommendation No 2/2005 – Mobile telephony services

http://www.autoridadedaconcorrencia.pt/vImages/recomendation2_2005.pdf

SLOVAKIA

Cartels

The construction of the motorway section D1 Mengusovce to Jánovce was tendered by

the Slovak Roads Administration in 2004. The motorway section was divided into two

parts, which meant that there were two separate tenders.

The lowest proposed prices of applicants in both tenders exceeded the maximum price

determined by the State by around 20%). Both tenders were accordingly abolished. In

order to assess whether an anticompetitive agreement had been concluded, the

Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic started to investigate.

By comparing the price offers of the tender participants at the level of individual items

(the tender assignment comprised almost 900 items), the Office found that the rate of

price offers for the individual items from all the tender participants was extraordin arily

constant in the offers for the first section of motorway.

The Office concluded that the tender participants had concluded an agreement restric-

ting competition resulting in price coordination for the first motorway section.

However, the Office did not collect enough evidence to prove collusive behaviour in the

tender for the second motorway section. The Office imposed a fine on the parties of

SKK 1 473 978 000 (EUR 40 000 000).

132



Slovak Chamber of Advocates – advertising restrictions

(Decision No 2005/KH/1/1/136 of 22 December 2005)

(https://webgate.cec.eu.int/competition/ecni/env_decision/index.cfm?fuseaction=

dsp_view&key_value=870)

Strabag a.s., Czech Republic, Doprastav, a.s., Slovak Republic, BETAMONT s.r.o., Slovak

Republic, Inžinierske stavby, a.s., Slovak Republic, Skanska DS a.s., Czech Republic,

Skanska BS a.s., Slovak Republic, Mota - Engil, Engenharia e Construcao, S.A., Portugal

– collusive tendering (Decision No 2005/KH/1/1/137 of 23 December 2005)

(https://webgate.cec.eu.int/competition/ecni/env_decision/index.cfm?fuseaction=

dsp_view&key_value=1009)

FINLAND

The Finnish Competition Authority (FCA) applied the EC competition articles in one

case in 2005.

The FCA issued a decision stating that Suomen Numeropalvelu Ltd (Finnish Telephone

Number Service, SNOY) had abused its dominant position by requiring that its cus-

tomer companies which provide telephone directory services cannot offer their ser vices

to end customers free of charge and without prior registration over the Internet.

SNOY is a joint company of the Fonecta Group Ltd and Finnet-Media Ltd, which main-

tains a national database of telephone subscriber information and resells the informa-

tion to companies offering telephone directory services. SNOY has no competitors at

the moment. SNOY’s owners compete with the complainant, Eniro Finland Ltd, as

provi ders of telephone directory services.

Based on its investigations, the FCA found that SNOY’s conduct is ultimately an

attempt to prevent the entry of competitors offering a new type of service. At the same

time, SNOY’s conduct slows down the development of directory services which exploit

new technology and which are more user-friendly, versatile and cost-effective. SNOY’s

conduct hence contradicts the legislator’s aim of increasing the supply of new kinds of

telephone directory services and to promote the use thereof.

In its decision, the FCA forbids SNOY’s conduct as a breach of the Competition Act and

Article 82 EC. The decision also imposes a supply obligation on SNOY regarding the

telephone subscriber information. To enforce the decision, a running conditional fine

was imposed. In addition to the prohibition decision, the FCA proposed to the Market

Court that it impose a competition infringement fine of EUR 150 000 on SNOY. The

decision (1097/61/2003) can be found in the FCA’s web pages in Finnish at:

http://www.kilpailuvirasto.fi/cgi-bin/suomi.cgi?luku=ratkaisut/muut-ratkaisut&sivu=

ratk/r-2005-61-1097.

133


SWEDEN

Abuses of dominant position

Dnr 797/2004

SES, a manufacturer and distributor of electrical installation products on the Swedish

market, abused its dominant position on the market for manufacturing and distributing

ordinary sockets and switches (including remote control switches, time-lag switches

and dimmers) by using loyalty rebates in its agreements with wholesale customers. By

using loyalty rebates SES made it more difficult for new companies to enter the market.

Outcome: commitment decision with a proposed penalty of a fine of SEK 3 million sub-

ject to confirmation by the Stockholm District Court.

Dnr 873/2005

TS, a Swedish telecoms operator, abused its dominant position on the market for access

to the public telephone network at a fixed location for residential customers. TS sought

to restrict competition from broadband operators offering IP-based access to

telephony services by offering selective discounts on installation of a fixed line

subscription to those customers who ask for number portation of their subscriber

number to the new operator’s network.

Outcome: prohibition decision with a proposed penalty of a fine of SEK 44 million

subject to confirmation by the Stockholm District Court.


Dnr 532/2004

EB manufactures and distributes wallpaper on the Swedish market. EB has a very strong

position on the market for manufacturing and distributing wallpaper to painters and

paper hangers. The Swedish Competition Authority’s investigation shows that EB, by

using a selective quantitative criterion in its selective distribution system with its re -

tailers, has made it more difficult for new retailers to enter the market. EB’s selective

distribution system cannot be exempted under Commission Regulation (EC)

No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty

to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices.

Outcome: commitment decision with a proposed penalty of a fine of SEK 1 million.

134



Case No Undertaking Links

Dnr 532/2004 Eco-Borås Tapeter http://www.konkurrensverket.se/ovr/Boråstapeter.shtm

Dnr 873/2005 TeliaSonera Sverige AB http://www.konkurrensverket.se/press/pressmeddelanden/2005/prm12_2005.shtm

Dnr 797/2004 Schneider Electric http://www.konkurrensverket.se/Sverige AB ovr/SE.shtm

Dnr 948/2003 Teracom AB http://www.konkurrensverket.se/beslut/03-0948.htm

Dnr 586/2004 Nokia Corporation http://www.konkurrensverket.se/beslut/04-0586.htm

Dnr 1126/2004 Brenntag Nordic Holdning http://www.konkurrensverket.se/beslut/04-1126.htm

Dnr 883/2004 Reci Industri /Dansk http://www.konkurrensverket.se/beslut/04-0883.htmOlie Genbrug A/S

UNITED KINGDOM


MasterCard UK Members Forum Limited – 6 September 2005

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) concluded that members of the MasterCard UK

Members Forum and other MasterCard licensees in the UK have been party to an

agreement which infringes both:

– the prohibition in Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, and

– the Chapter I prohibition in section 2 of the Competition Act 1998.

This agreement, setting the level of the fallback multilateral interchange fee which app-

lied to all transactions made using UK issued MasterCard cards, was effective from

1 March 2000 to 18 November 2004. From 18 November 2004, new arrangements for

setting the fallback interchange fee applying to UK MasterCard transactions were

introduced.

The OFT found that the infringing agreement restricted competition in two ways. First,

it gave rise to a collective agreement on the level of the multilateral interchange fee

(essentially, a collective agreement on price). Secondly, it resulted in the unjustified

recovery of certain costs (extraneous costs) incurred by MasterCard UK Members

Forum members and other MasterCard licensees through the multilateral interchange

fee.

The infringing agreement was notified to the OFT for decision on 1 March 2000. In

light of all the circumstances of this case, the OFT did not consider it appropriate to

135


impose a penalty in respect of the infringement arising from the agreement. Because

the agreement is now at an end, the question of directions did not arise in this case.

However, the principles which inform this decision are likely to be applicable to the new

arrangements for setting the fallback interchange fee.

Other enforcement activities

• Complaint from Gamma Telecom Limited against BT Wholesale about reduced rates

for wholesale calls from 1 December 2004 to 17 June 2005

The Office for Communications (Ofcom) considered that British Telecommunications

Group plc (BT) had not infringed section 18 (the Chapter II prohibition) of the

Competition Act 1998 or Article 82 of the EC Treaty in relation to revised pricing, effec-

tive from 1 December 2004, of BT’s Wholesale Calls Product (BT’s revised wholesale

call tariff structure).

Ofcom’s decision was made following an investigation which was opened because of a

complaint from Gamma Telecom Limited (Gamma) that BT’s revised wholesale call

tariff structure represented an anticompetitive margin squeeze.

The decision sets out in detail Ofcom’s assessment that under a range of assumptions

and scenarios, there was no margin squeeze in respect of BT’s revised wholesale call

tariff structure and, therefore, there were no grounds for action.

• Reinvestigation of a complaint from VIP Communications Limited against T-Mobile

(UK) Limited – 30 June 2005

Ofcom concluded that T-Mobile had not infringed the Chapter II prohibition of the

Competition Act 1998 or Article 82 of the EC Treaty by suspending/disconnecting the

services it was providing to VIP for use in VIP’s GSM gateways, while allegedly contin-

uing to supply the same services to other companies for use in GSM gateways. There

were therefore no grounds for action against T-Mobile.

• Reinvestigation of a complaint from Floe Telecom Limited against Vodafone Limited

– 30 June 2005

Ofcom concluded that Vodafone had not infringed the Chapter II prohibition of the

Competition Act 1998 or Article 82 of the EC Treaty by disconnecting the services it

was providing to Floe for use in Floe’s GSM gateways, while allegedly continuing to sup-

ply the same services to other companies for use in GSM gateways. There were

therefore no grounds for action against Vodafone.

136


• Complaint from NTM Sales and Marketing Ltd against Portec Rail Products (UK) Ltd

concerning the supply of grease for use in electric trackside lubricators – 19 August

2005

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) decided that there were no grounds for action

under the Chapter I prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 or Article 81 of the EC

Treaty against Portec Rail Products (UK) Ltd (Portec) and RS Clare and Company Ltd

(Clare). ORR also decided that, in respect of Portec, there were no grounds for action

under the Chapter II prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 or Article 82 of the EC

Treaty.

ORR’s decision follows its investigation into a complaint by NTM Sales and Marketing

(NTM), made on 20 July 2004, that Portec had attempted to use a dominant position in

the market for the supply of testing services for grease for use in electric trackside lubri-

cators to foreclose the market for the supply of grease for use in electric trackside lubri-

cators to NTM.

Although ORR did not rule out that Portec might be dominant on the market for test-

ing services, it did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Portec had abused a

dominant position or that it had entered into any anticompetitive agreements or prac-

tices with Clare.

137


B – APPLICATION OF THE EC COMPETITION RULES BY NATIONAL COURTS

The competition authorities of the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Estonia,

Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland

have not reported any decisions by their courts applying the EC competition rules.

Decisions applying the EC competition rules were reported as follows by the competition

authorities of the following Member States:

BELGIUM

National preliminary rulings

The Brussels Court of Appeal has sole jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on ques-

tions submitted to it by domestic courts hearing competition cases. In 2005, it gave pre-

liminary rulings in three cases involving Community competition law and in one case

involving national competition law.

In the three cases involving Community law, the Competition Council and the Corps

des Rapporteurs submitted written observations. With respect to these cases also, the

European Commission delivered an opinion in response to the request for assistance

addressed to it by the Brussels Court of Appeal pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation

(EC) No 1/2003.

Emond Laurent v Brasserie Haacht: judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal of

23 June 2005

In 1993 Brasserie Haacht signed with a cafe tenant a 10-year exclusive purchasing

agreement for that brewery’s beers. The tenant subsequently sold his goodwill and in

1997 the buyer concluded another exclusive purchasing agreement with Brasserie

Haacht for beverages other than beer.

In 1999 the buyer went bankrupt and the first tenant sought early termination of the

1993 agreement. Brasserie Haacht refused, arguing that, on the contrary, it was entitled

to insist on observance of the period laid down in the 1993 agreement.

The Liège Court of Appeal made a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the

lawfulness of the 1993 agreement in the light of Article 81 EC.

The Brussels Court of Appeal examined the compatibility of the agreements with

Community law, taking it as a given that the condition of an effect on trade between

Member States was fulfilled. The two agreements were lawful at the time of their con-

clusion as they were covered by the block exemptions laid down in Regulations (EEC)

No 1984/83 and (EC) No 2790/1999. The Court nevertheless took the view that the

relevant time when it came to examining the agreements' compatibility with the com-

petition rules was not the time of the agreements’ conclusion but the time of their

139

termination. The Court considered, moreover, that each agreement had to be examined

separately as the goods to which the two agreements related were not substitutable and

therefore did not form part of the same market.

Following a very detailed analysis of the application over time of the EC block exemp-

tion regulations, the Court observed that, at the time of the alleged breach, the 1993

agreement was covered by the block exemption provided for by Regulation (EC) No

2790/1999 and satisfied the conditions of the Commission notice of 13 October 2000

containing guidelines on vertical restraints (OJ C 291, 13.10.2000, p. 1).

By contrast, at the time of the alleged breach, the second agreement was not covered by

any EC block exemption regulation. Notwithstanding this, the Court held that the

agreement was lawful under the competition rules on the basis of the Commission noti-

ces on de minimis agreements, even allowing for a possible cumulative foreclosure

effect. The Court concluded that the lawfulness of the agreements was not in question

and that, therefore, the issue of the nullity of an agreement prohibited under Article

81(1) EC did not arise.

SABAM v Productions & Marketing (P&M): judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal of

3 November 2005

P&M, an organiser of musical events, brought an action before the Brussels

Commercial Court against SABAM, a collecting society which manages music copy-

rights and which enjoys a de facto monopoly over the granting of copyright licences for

musical performances and concerts. SABAM had refused to confer on P&M the status

of ‘large organiser’, which would have entitled it to a 50% reduction in the royalties

payable. P&M argued that SABAM was guilty of abusing a dominant position by

making conferment of ‘large organiser’ status conditional, inter alia, on P&M having

carried on its activities for at least three years, and that SABAM thus groundlessly

favoured established businesses over businesses newly entering the market.

The Brussels Commercial Court applied to the Brussels Court of Appeal for a prelimi-

nary ruling on whether SABAM’s conduct constituted an abuse of a dominant position.

The Court first of all justified the application of Community competition law in this

case. SABAM being the sole operator capable of issuing authorisations on the Belgian

market for the organisation of musical performances, the tiered pricing it applied to the

organisers of performances according to a criterion based on time in the market was

liable to make it more difficult for competitors from other Member States to gain access

to the Belgian market for the organisation of performances. The Court held that

SABAM’s pricing system constituted an abusive practice in that it had the effect of

applying to organisers of performances unequal conditions for services that were equi-

valent.

The Court found that SABAM could not base the tiered pricing on economic argu-

ments such as the volume of business generated or economies of scale. It viewed, more-

140


over, as manifestly excessive the difference – by a ratio of 2:1 – between the rate offered

to large organisers and the basic rate.

Wallonie Expo (WEX) v FEBIAC: judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal of

10 November 2005

FEBIAC is a federation of all Belgian motor car and utility vehicle manufacturers and

importers which organises a utility vehicle exhibition every two years. For its 2005 exhi-

bition FEBIAC introduced a rule prohibiting exhibitors from taking part in any similar

event held in Belgium during the six months preceding the opening of its exhibition.

The President of the Court of First Instance, hearing an application for interim relief,

made a reference to the Brussels Court of Appeal for a preliminary ruling on the ques-

tion of the lawfulness of such a non-competition clause. In their written observations,

the Competition Council and the Corps des Rapporteurs concluded – as did the

European Commission in the opinion it presented to the Court – that there was an

effect on trade between Member States. Most of the vehicles exhibited were imported

and the exhibitors accounted for almost all imports and sales of the relevant products

in Belgium, with the result that the prohibition on taking part in other exhibitions in

Belgium was likely to have an impact on intra-Community trade.

The Brussels Court of Appeal held that FEBIAC’s rule was not contrary to Article 81(1)

EC because the condition as to the appreciable nature of the restriction of competition

was not fulfilled. The Court considered that it had not been established that the six-

month prohibition had the effect of appreciably restricting an organiser’s ability to com-

pete effectively with FEBIAC by attracting a sufficient number of exhibitors and visitors.

FEBIAC’s rule for the 2005 exhibition was therefore not caught by Article 81(1) EC.

The Court then examined the lawfulness of the rule in the light of Article 82 EC. It

found that FEBIAC held a de facto monopoly in the market for the provision of services

related to the organisation of utility vehicle exhibitions in Belgium and hence in a sub-

stantial part of the common market. The prohibition on taking part in other events

which FEBIAC imposed on its exhibitors formed an obstacle to any competition during

the six-month period and was liable to influence the structure of the market. In the

Court’s opinion, this prohibition was neither justified nor proportionate.

In conclusion, FEBIAC’s rule for its 2005 exhibition was lawful and could not therefore

be prohibited under Article 81(1) EC. However, as a dominant undertaking, FEBIAC

could not apply the prohibition rule to its 2005 exhibition as it constituted an abusive

practice.

Kristel Cools v Christelijke Mutualiteiten Antwerpen: judgment of the Brussels Court of

Appeal of 25 January 2005

By judgment of 25 January 2005, the Brussels Court of Appeal answered a question of

Belgian competition law put to it by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling from the

141

B – Application of the EC competition rules by national courts

Antwerp Court of First Instance in a case involving supplementary insurance for ortho-

dontic treatment which the Christian Sickness Insurance Fund of Antwerp offered its

members. This insurance afforded entitlement to an additional reimbursement if the

care was provided by a dentist who met certain requirements, such as training in ortho-

dontics or a certain amount of experience in dentistry.

Mrs Kristel Cools was a dentist who did not meet these requirements and who sought

from the Court a judgment ordering the Christian Sickness Insurance Fund of Antwerp

to pay her damages for loss of earnings from patients who, in order to obtain reim -

bursement of the cost of orthodontic care, had turned to other dentists who met the

requi rements laid down by the insurance fund.

The Court confined itself to answering in the negative the question whether, in provi-

ding such a service, the Christian Sickness Insurance Fund of Antwerp was acting as an

undertaking within the meaning of the Act of 5 August 1991, as coordinated on 1 July

1999, on the Protection of Economic Competition. Given that possession of the status

of undertaking was a requirement for the application of Articles 2 and 3 of that Act, the

Court no longer had to examine the lawfulness of the competitive practice.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the fact that the service was provided as part of the

performance of the task which the legislator had entrusted to sickness insurance funds

and social security bodies, namely the payment of compulsory benefits which private

insurers were unable either to pay or to pay sufficiently. Hence the orthodontics ben-

efit possessed, in the Court’s view, the features of a benefit paid by a social security

scheme.

In its written observations to the Court, the Competition Council had expressed the

view that, in providing the orthodontics benefit, the Christian Sickness Insurance Fund

of Antwerp was in fact acting as an undertaking, and referred to the decision of the

Council’s President on an application for interim measures, No 2001-V/M of 2 January

2001 (Moniteur belge of 5 May 2001, 14852).

DENMARK

Højesterets dom af 20. april 2005 (UfR 2005.2171H) (Supreme Court’s judgment of

20 April 2005). GT Linien A/S vs. DSB and Scanlines A/S

The judgment concerns inter alia abuse of a dominant position under Article 82 EC. De

Danske Statsbaner (DSB) is a State-owned train and ferry operator. DSB owned Gedser

harbour and provided ferry transport to Germany. As the owner of the harbour, DSB

collected harbour fees for the use of the harbour from another ferry operator, GT

Linien, which also used Gedser harbour for ferry transport. The Supreme Court found

that DSB had a dominant position on the market for harbour services concerning ferry

transport between Denmark and Germany on the Baltic Sea. The Supreme Court ruled

that DSB abused its dominant position by imposing harbour fees on GT Linien and

without charging such fees to itself and Deutsche Bundesbahn. This constituted an

142


abuse of Article 82(2)(c) EC. The Court concluded that the harbour fees were not

passed on to the customers of GT Linien and, accordingly, DSB was ordered to pay

damages to GT Linien.

GERMANY

The following is a summary of the decisions by German civil courts in which

Community law was applied and about which the Federal Government was informed.

Court Date of Subject

the decision

OLG 20.01.2005 Termination of a dealership contract following adoption (Oberlandesgericht) of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 applicable to relevantMünchen U (K) 3447/04 contract clause

Grounds: Article 81(1) EC, Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002

LG (Landgericht) 03.02.2005 Since defendant did not have a dominant position on theBremen 12 o 442/02 market, no entitlement to payment of damages for refusal

of access to the port of Bremerhaven for the performanceof stevedoring services by the plaintiff (Articles 33 and19(4), point 4, Act prohibiting Restraints of Competition(GWB); Article 82 EC)

OLG Stuttgart 2 u 84/04 17.02.2005 No abuse in the defendant's raising network charges andmeter rents: assumption of good practice under Article6(1) of the Energy Act (EnWG) in calculating the networkcharges on the basis of VV Strom II Plus; approval of thecharges in accordance with Article 12 of the FederalRegulation on Electricity Tariffs (BTOElt), Article 6(1) ofthe EnWG, Articles 19 and 20 of the GWB, Article 315 ofthe Civil Code (BGB) and Article 81 EC

BGH (Bundesgerichtshof) 22.02.2005 Plaintiff not obliged to pay damages for repudiation of KZR 28/03 sales target agreement in the service contract; nullity of the

sales target agreement because it was equivalent to a ‘tied’supply(Article 81 EC, Article 4(1), point (3) of Reg. No 1475/95)

LG Köln 85 O 75/04 08.03.2005 Entitlement to repayment of premiums paid under firms’customer programmes on following grounds: underlyingcontractual rules valid under antitrust law(Article 81 EC)

LG München I 27 O 899/04 01.04.2005 Entitlement to payment under lease and beer supply con-tract on the following grounds: contract valid under anti-trust law(Articles 17, 19 and 20 GWB; Articles 81 and 82 EC)

OLG Düsseldorf VI 13.04.2005 Rejection of the appellant's application for restoration ofKart 3/05 (V) the suspensive effect of the appeal against the Cartel

Office's decision: whether formally, procedurally or sub-stantively, there were no serious doubts about the legiti -macy of the disputed decision. Consideration of the con-flicting interests justified its having immediate effect. The immediate effect did not cause the complainant undue hardship

LG Köln 28 O 13.04.2005 Entitlement to repayment of discounts because of resale (Kart) 647/04 of vehicles acquired by the defendant (Article 81 EC)

143


LG Mannheim 22 29.04.2005 Plaintiff not entitled to compensation from defendantO 74/04 Kart because of defendant's participation in the price cartel of

European paper manufacturers (on the basis of transferredrights)(Article 823(2) BGB, Article 81 EC, Articles 1 and 33 GWB)

OLG Düsseldorf VI-2 10.06.2005 Annulment of the Cartel Office's prohibition order of Kart 12/04 (V) 17 June 2004 concerning a cartel of SMEs in the distribu -

tion of precast concrete parts; appreciableness of the effecton trade between Member States not ascertainable

BGH KZR 26/04 28.06.2005 Annulment of the industrial tribunal's judgment: the blockexemption (motor vehicles) regulation governs only theexemption from the prohibition provided for in Article81(1) EC: standards of conduct enforceable in civil lawcannot be deduced from it(Articles 33 and 20(1) and (2) GWB; Regulation (EC) No 1475/95; Article 81 EC)

OLG Düsseldorf U 05.07.2005 Payment entitlement arising from several work contracts(Kart) 39/03 for the processing of waste glass: even if the defendant's

agreed minimum guarantee were not compatible with car-tel law, this would not affect the validity of the price agree-ment(Article 81(1) and (2) EC; Article 139 BGB)

BGH KZR 14/04 26.07.2005 Suspension of the procedure: submission to the ECJ underArticle 234 EC to obtain clarification of an issue relating tothe block exemption (motor vehicles) regulation

BGH KZR 16/04 26.07.2005 Suspension of the procedure: submission to the ECJ underArticle 234 EC to obtain clarification of an issue relating tothe block exemption (motor vehicles) regulation

LG Köln 28 O 03.08.2005 Request for issuing of an interim order regarding partial(Kart) 308/05 access to services inadmissible: preference to arbitration

procedure in accordance with Article 31 Postal Act(Articles 20 and 33 GWB; Article 82 EC; Article 31 Postal Act)

OLG Düsseldorf 28.09.2005 No entitlement to activation of ‘SIM cards’ by the VI-U 11/05 (Kart) defendant: blockage was permissible because the plaintiff

used the SIM cards with a GSM gateway, in breach of con-tract, to enable other companies to terminate telephonecalls in the plaintiff ’s mobile telephony network. No en -titlement to use the SIM cards for commercial telecom -munications services(Articles 19 and 20 GWB; Article 82 EC; Article 1 Act Prohibiting Unfair Competition (UWG))

OLG Düsseldorf VI-U 28.09.2005 No contractual entitlement to activation of ‘SIM cards’ by10/05 (Kart) the defendant: blockage was permissible because the plain-

tiff used the SIM cards with a GSM gateway, in breach ofcontract, to enable other companies to terminate telephonecalls in the plaintiff ’s mobile telephony network. No enti -tlement to use the SIM cards for commercial telecom -munications services(Articles 19 and 20 GWB; Article 82 EC; Article 1 UWG)

LG Dortmund 13 18.10.2005 Entitlement to enforcement of exclusive distribution O 135/05 (Kart) agreement

(Article 1 GWB; Article 81 EC)

LG Berlin 16 15.11.2005 Inadmissibility of clauses in the petrol station O 151/05 Kart management contracts used by the defendant

(Article 16(2) GWB; Article 307 BGB; Article 89b HGB; Article 81 EC)

144


SPAIN

In 2005, 10 judgments in which Article 81 or 82 of the Treaty was applied have been

transmitted to the Commission in accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC)

No 1/2003.

Nine judgments related to proceedings brought by petrol stations against oil companies.

The matters disputed in these legal proceedings between oil companies and petrol sta-

tions have all been similar in nature, focusing principally on the possible invalidity of

the supply contracts and their nullity.

Five of these proceedings were appeals against judgments handed down by courts of

first instance. The first instance court is either a ‘Juzgado de lo Mercantil’ or a ‘Juzgado

de Primera Instancia’, while the court of second instance is the ‘Audiencia Provincial’.

Judgment No 42/05 of 31 January 2005 handed down by Audiencia Provincial of Madrid

Section 9. Parties: Melón, SA & Zarza SL against Repsol SA

In the initial judgment, the complaint brought by the petrol stations Melón SA and

Zarza SL was dismissed. The petrol stations appealed, but the Audiencia Provincial

confirmed the ruling of the court of first instance that the contracts at issue were ‘com-

mission agreements’, i.e. genuine agency agreements.

Judgment No 14/05 of 22 March 2005 handed down by Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 2 of

Madrid. Parties: confidential

A petrol station brought proceedings against an oil company for allegedly setting final

prices for customers and demanded damages. The court dismissed all claims. It classi-

fied the contract as a ‘non-genuine agency agreement’ according to the guidelines on

vertical restrictions (Commission notice of 13 October 2000). Secondly, it ruled against

the existence of price fixing as the oil company fixed maximum prices leaving it to the

petrol station to reduce final prices by cutting its margins in favour of the customers.

Fiscal arguments made by the claimant relating to this matter were also dismissed.

Judgment No 45/05 of 15 April 2005 handed down by Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 5 of

Madrid. Parties: Aloyas SL against Repsol SA

A petrol station brought an action before this specialised court of first instance on the

possible invalidity of a supply contract, its nullity and requested damages. After a

review of the contract and the distribution of commercial, financial and product risks,

the court ruled that the contracts cannot be considered as agency agreements but rather

are re-sale agreements. Secondly, it ruled against the allegation of fixing of consumer

prices by the oil company. The court found that the exclusive distribution clause at issue

did not fall within the scope of the block exemption regulations and that it had anti-

competitive effects prohibited by Article 81 EC. The nullity of the exclusivity clause led

to a finding of the nullity of the whole contract. Damages were not awarded.

145


Judgment No 368/05 of 5 July 2005 handed down by Audiencia Provincial of Madrid

Section 21. Parties: Rutamur SA against Repsol SA

The appeal formed part of the ordinary proceedings brought by the complainants

before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia of Madrid No 26. In the initial judgment, the

claim brought by the petrol station Rutamur SA, in which it sought that the contracts

be considered as re-sale agreements from 1993 and that it be paid damages for the loss

of income during those years, was dismissed. The Audiencia confirmed the decision of

the court of first instance, finding that the contract was not a re-sale agreement but

rather a genuine agency agreement to which the prohibition of Article 81(1) does not

apply (the applicability of the block exemption regulations was therefore not at issue).

The costs incurred were divided between the two parties.

Judgment No 180/05 of 29 July 2005 handed down by Juzgado de Primera Instancia

No 3 of Madrid. Parties: LV Tobar e Hijos SL against Cepsa Estaciones de Servicio SA

The judge admitted the action of a service station operator and declared that the ser vice

station operator is a re-seller of the oil products and that in view of the block exemp-

tion regulations (EEC) No 1984/83 and (EEC) No 2790/1999 the contract with the oil

company is null in its entirety. Three aspects were taken into account by the judge.

Firstly, the legal nature of the contract is a re-sale agreement, rather than a genuine

agency, insofar as the complainant assumes the financial risk. Secondly, the agreement

at stake cannot benefit from the block exemption regulations, due to the restriction on

re-sale price maintenance and the profit margins which are fixed by the oil company.

Thirdly, the duration of the contract at stake exceeds the limit set by Article 12.1(c) of

Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83. Finally, the judgment included the fulfilment of the pay-

ment obligations in accordance with contracts with similar characteristics.

Judgment No 191/05 of 3 October 2005 handed down by Audiencia Provincial of Albacete

Section 2º. Parties: Conrado Quilez Alejo against Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos

SA & CEPSA Estaciones de Servicio SA

The substance of the case is once again the legal nature of the contract between the

petrol station operator and the automotive fuel distributors. In this case, the court

found that the will of the parties was to conclude an agency contract. Moreover, the

judgment outlines the criteria (financial and investment risks) for assessing whether a

retailer is an agent under EC competition rules by reference to the European

Commission’s guidelines. The court dismissed the claim of nullity of the contract and

confirmed the decision at first instance.

Judgment of 7 October 2005 handed down by Audiencia Provincial of Madrid Section 8º.

Parties: I.D.Infraestructuras y Desarrollo SL against Repsol SA

The complainant – a petrol station operator – brought a claim against Repsol that the

legal nature of the contractual relationship is a re-sale agreement, and therefore Article

12.1.(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 (exception to Article 10) should be applied, so

that the contract is void under Article 81 EC. The court ruled in conformity with the

doctrine of the Supreme Court about the retail sale of automotive fuel (judgments of

146


2 June 2000, 20 June 2001) and the Commission’s guidelines. It found firstly, that I.D.

Infraestructuras y Desarrollo is an agent and that there is no property transfer of the

products. Moreover, the retailer has the option to substitute the re-sale agreement by an

agency agreement, and this right had not been used. Secondly, Article 12.2 of

Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 must be applied as an exception to the time limit indi-

cated by Article 12.1(c) because the agreement ‘relates to a petrol station which the sup-

plier lets to the reseller or allows the reseller to occupy on some other basis’. Thirdly, a

network of exclusive supply contracts which may lead to foreclosure of the market in

accordance with the ECJ’s case-law (Delimitis) has not been proved. As a result, the

appeal was dismissed and the decision at first instance was confirmed.

Judgment No 103/05 of 19 October 2005 handed down by Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 4

of Madrid. Parties: Inversiones Cobasa SL against BP Oil España SA

In a similar case, the judge ruled that the legal nature of the contract is not a re-sale

agreement but an agency contract. Nevertheless, it was further concluded that it was not

a genuine agency agreement because the retailer assumes some level of financial risk.

The judge found that the type and size of the network of suppliers in Spain neither

affect interstate trade nor lead to a restriction of competition. In addition, no resale

price maintenance was imposed by the contract. With regard to the duration of the con-

tract, it was ruled that Article 12.2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 was applicable in

this case. The action of the petrol station operator was accordingly dismissed.

Judgment No 85/05 of 11 November 2005 handed down by Juzgado de lo Mercantil

No 5 of Madrid. Parties: Conduit Europe SA against Telefónica de España SAU

Telefónica was ordered to pay EUR 639 003 damages to Conduit for a breach of com-

petition law (Spanish Unfair Competition Law, Article 82 EC and other national regu-

lations) plus the amount to be proved during the execution of the judgment. The court

ruled that Telefónica abused its dominant position by providing Conduit with defective

and incomplete subscriber data.

It is the first time that a Spanish court has granted damages for a breach of competition

rules in the telecommunications market, on the back of a prior declaration of

that breach by the telecoms regulator, the ‘Comisión del Mercado de las

Telecomunicaciones’ (CMT). The judgment thereby follows EC case-law (Courage).

The events in question date back to when the directory enquiries market in Spain effec-

tively opened and ‘118’ services were launched. Telefónica was required to deliver accu-

rate subscriber data to competitive providers in order to enable fair competition.

However, the CMT declared in 2003, as a result of complaints filed by Conduit, that

Telefónica had breached these obligations.

This court ruling confirms that Telefónica provided Conduit with inaccurate and

incomplete subscriber data which caused the new entrant a competitive disadvantage

and additional costs relating to the cost of sourcing alternative data and data cleansing.

The court has ordered Telefónica to pay Conduit for these costs as well as legal costs.

147


Judgment of 19 November 2005 handed down by Audiencia Provincial of Madrid Section

11º. Parties: Multipetróleos SL against Cepsa Estaciones de Servicio SA

The action of the petrol station operator against Cepsa is similar to the other cases out-

lined above. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, which had been

denied by the first instance court. The substance of the procedure was about the nature

of the contract. Although there are contradictory judgments among the different sec-

tions of this ‘Audiencia Provincial’, the contract was deemed to be an agency and exclu-

sive supply agreement (financial risks are not assumed, no transfer of property in the

products, option to change into a re-sale agreement) to which Regulation (EEC)

No 1984/83 cannot be applied. The action was consequently dismissed.

FRANCE

Injunctions (to stop an infringement, fulfilment of a contractual duty)

Court of Cassation, 28 June 2005, DaimlerChrysler France

The case concerned a refusal to grant authorisation under the new motor vehicle regu-

lation, Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002, to a dealer whose contract had expired following

its termination under the previous regulation, Regulation No 1475/95.

The Dijon Court of Appeal had ordered, subject to the payment of a penalty, the manu-

facturer to recognise the dealer as an authorised repairer. The court had held that the

manufacturer’s refusal to authorise an applicant who fulfilled its conditions was a dis-

criminatory decision contrary to the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002.

The Court of Cassation confirmed the analysis of the Court of Appeal but ruled that it

was not for the latter to assess the appropriateness of the manufacturer’s choice of cri-

teria. It therefore overturned the Appeal Court’s judgment on this point and sent the

parties before the Paris Court of Appeal.

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/national_courts/court_2005_033_fr.pdf

Nullity decisions

Paris Court of Appeal, 12 April 2005, Ténor

By Decision 04-D-48 of 14 October 2004, the Competition Council had found that

France Télécom and SFR had infringed the provisions of Article 82 of the Treaty by

imposing charges which prevented new entrants to the fixed telephony market from

proposing, by means of interconnection to the two operators’ mobile networks, compe-

titive ‘fixed-to-mobile’ offerings without incurring losses. The Competition Council

considered that those practices had had the effect of delaying new operators’ entry to

the market at a time when, in order to operate on the market, they had no other tech-

nical solution but interconnection with the networks of France Télécom and SFR.

148


The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and held that it had not been established that

France Télécom and SFR had infringed the provisions of Article 82 of the Treaty.


Paris Court of Appeal, 2 March 2005, Kitch Moto sarl v Suzuki France SA

With a view to obtaining a finding that the termination of an exclusive dealing agree-

ment between it and Suzuki was abusive and harsh, Kitch Moto appealed against

a judgment of the Paris Commercial Court, invoking exemption Regulation (EC)

No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to

categories of vertical agreements.

It asked the Court of Appeal to annul Article 2 of the dealing agreement, which it had

breached, on the basis of Article 4(b) of the exemption regulation, which prohibits ter-

ritorial restrictions under certain conditions. It argued that only active sales outside the

network could be banned.

The Court of Appeal rejected the application on the ground that the localisation clause

provided for in the dealing agreement did not infringe the provisions of Article 4(c) of

the regulation, which allow the supplier ‘the possibility of prohibiting a member of the

system from operating out of an unauthorised place of establishment’.


Paris Court of Appeal, 12 April 2005, Appeal by Export Press against Competition Council

Decision 04-D-45 of 16 September 2004

A law of 2 April 1947 on the status of newspaper and periodical consolidation and dis-

tribution enterprises reserves the sale of individual issues in the overseas departments

to publishers and press distribution services.

The Competition Council had declared inadmissible an action brought by Export Press

against exclusionary practices on the part of NMPP, which was in a dominant position

on the market, on the ground that, as it was neither a press distribution service nor a

publisher, Export Press did not have an interest in bringing proceedings.

Export Press appealed on the ground that the 1947 law was contrary to the provisions

of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty. The Court of Appeal confirmed the Competition

Council’s analysis and held that there was nothing to suggest that the status of press

enterprises as laid down by the 1947 law was in itself contrary to the provisions of

Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty and hence incapable of being relied on as against Export

Press.


Court of Cassation, 12 July 2005, SPEA

The Syndicat des Professionnels Européens de l’Automobile (SPEA) alleged that

Renault and its dealers’ association had engaged in anticompetitive practices aimed at

149


restricting parallel imports of vehicles by means of, firstly, sales support for dealers

facing competition from independent agents and resellers located abroad and, second-

ly, the banning of the granting by the network of discounts on certain models.

The Court of Appeal had confirmed the analysis carried out by the Competition

Council in its Decision 03-D-66, holding that the support given to dealers qualified for

exemption under Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 (on the exemption of

certain exclusive or selective motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements) since

it had not had the effect of reducing the commercial freedom of dealers, distributors

outside the network and end users but had on the contrary had a positive impact on

competition by permitting the maintenance of the network’s density and the quality of

the services offered and by bringing about a significant reduction in prices.

The Court of Appeal had found, moreover, that no voluntary agreement between the

manufacturer and its dealers aimed at prohibiting the network from granting discounts

on certain models had been proved to exist.

The Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s analysis.



Strasbourg Regional Court, 3 February 2005, Brasseries Kronenbourg SA

Brasseries Kronenbourg SA had terminated a beer supply agreement it had entered into

with a cafe, le Victor Hugo, on the ground that the latter had not complied with the

agreement’s provisions.

The Strasbourg Regional Court held that the agreement was covered by block exemp-

tion Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 if Brasseries Kronenbourg’s market share did not

exceed 30% of the relevant market, even if the beer volumes were deemed to be con-

tractually excessive.

The court found that, were Brasseries Kronenbourg’s market share to be such that the

agreement did not qualify for automatic exemption under the regulation, it would be

for the cafe’s owner to show that the agreement did not satisfy the conditions for exemp-

tion. In its judgment, the court dismissed for lack of proof the owner’s application for a

declaration that the agreement was null and void.


Paris Court of Appeal, 21 September 2005, Jean-Louis David France

In asking the Court of Appeal to declare the consent clause contained in the franchise

agreement between it and Jean-Louis David France to be abusive, Socovi maintained

that it was for the former company to prove the clause’s lawfulness in the light of Article

81 of the Treaty. The court held that it was not established that the franchise network

set up by Jean-Louis David France was likely to affect intra-Community trade and

150


found that the clause in question did not constitute a hardcore restriction of competi -

tion prohibited by exemption Regulations (EEC) No 4082/88 and (EC) 2790/1999.

The court upheld the judgment of the Paris Commercial Court of 23 May 2003.


Paris Court of Appeal, 8 June 2005, LCJ Diffusion SA v La Roche-Posay SA and

Cosmétique Active France SNC

La Roche-Posay manufactures skin-care products which it markets through a selective

distribution network of which Cosmétique Active France forms part. Having been

ordered by the lower court to cease selling La Roche-Posay products, LCJ Diffusion, a

company outside the network, asked the Court of Appeal to find that La Roche-Posay’s

agreements did not qualify for exemption under Article 81(3) of the Treaty.

The court held that the agreements did not contain any clauses prohibited by Article 4

of block exemption Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 and that the exemption provided for

by that regulation was not rendered inapplicable solely by reason of the exceeding of the

threshold of 30% of a market which, moreover, was not the relevant market.

The court upheld the lower court’s judgment.


Procedural issues (e.g. burden of proof, jurisdictional issues, etc.)

Paris Court of Appeal, 15 June 2005, Automobiles de Gap SA

Automobiles de Gap SA brought an action alleging that Automobiles Citroën SA had

set excessively high sales targets in its dealership agreements and that this had led to the

plaintiff becoming insolvent.

The Court of Appeal noted that exemption Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 on motor ve -

hicle distribution agreements, as worded at the material time, provided that ‘Articles 1,

2 and 3 shall apply notwithstanding any obligation imposed on the dealer to endeavour

to sell, within the contract territory and within a specified period, [a] minimum quan-

tity of contract goods …’, save where the criteria laid down for attaining those objec-

tives were not objective and non-discriminatory.

The court held that the method adopted was based both concretely and objectively not

only on the make’s performance at national and regional level but also on the relevant

dealer’s previous results.

The court upheld the judgment of the Commercial Court.


151


Paris Court of Appeal, 22 February 2005, Appeal by JC Decaux SA against Competition

Council Decision 04-D-32 of 8 July 2004

The Competition Council had fined Decaux under Article 82 of the EC Treaty EUR

700 000 for abusing its dominant position on the market for the supply to local auth -

orities of advertising street furniture.

The Paris Court of Appeal rejected Decaux’s plea that the Competition Council had

exceeded its remit in this case by prohibiting practices not covered by the referral. The

court ruled, in line with established case-law, that, once a matter had been referred to

it, the Competition Council was empowered to investigate all the facts and practices

affecting the market to which the referral related, and hence to examine practices

uncovered by the investigation, provided that they had the same object or the same

effect as those which had been brought to its attention, even if those practices contin-

ued after the referral.

The court upheld the Competition Council’s decision.


Paris Court of Appeal, 24 May 2005, Digitechnic

The Paris Court of Appeal heard an appeal against a decision of the Competition

Council (04-D-76) rejecting a complaint by Digitechnic, a computer assembler, against

practices by Microsoft, a firm in a dominant position on the market for personal com-

puter operating systems and on that for office application software. The Competition

Council had found that the alleged practices of the withholding of licences and price

discrimination were not proved, that Digitechnic had not been prevented from carry-

ing on its assembling activities and that the price discrimination was justified by objec-

tive reasons.

The Court of Appeal held, on the contrary, that the possibility could not be ruled out

that Microsoft might have abused its dominant position on the two relevant markets by

deferring the granting of distribution licences to assemblers and by charging them pri-

ces which bore no relation to those it charged other equipment manufacturers.

The court annulled the Competition Council’s decision and referred to case back to the

Competition Council for further investigation.


Strasbourg Regional Court, 4 February 2005, Brasseries Kronenbourg SA: The national

court has jurisdiction to apply Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

Brasseries Kronenbourg had terminated its beer supply agreement with JBEG sarl. The

latter asked the court to suspend judgment and seek the European Commission’s opin-

ion on the agreement’s compatibility with Article 81 of the Treaty.

152


JBEG’s request was refused on the ground that Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

empowered Member States’ courts to apply Article 81 of the Treaty and required them

to apply also the Community rules when applying national law on restrictive practices

or abuses of dominant positions.


Paris Court of Appeal, 21 September 2005, Jean-Louis David France

The Court of Appeal ruled that it had not been proved that the franchise network set

up by Jean-Louis David France might affect intra-Community trade. It did not appear

in any event that the clause complained of, which constituted a means of giving effect

to the intuitus personae characterising the franchise agreement and which was design-

ed to prevent the benefit of the know-how and of the assistance provided from going

directly to a competitor, infringed, as a hardcore restriction of competition, the rules

introduced by Commission exemption Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December

1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of franchise agree-

ments.

The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Paris Commercial Court.

Paris Court of Appeal, 26 January and 16 February 2005, Volkswagen

Claude Petit and Raphaël Petit, dealers in the Volkswagen France network, had brought

an action for the latter’s failure to help them face up to competition from Belgian

Volkswagen dealers engaged in parallel imports.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the provision by a supplier of assistance or back-up to

the members of its network was not unlawful per se under Article 81 of the Treaty. It

considered, however, that Volkswagen France was not obliged to compensate for any

difference between the prices charged by its own network and those charged by dealers

in other Member States. It accordingly nonsuited the appeal.


153


List of court judgments applying Article 81 or 82 of the Treaty in 2005

Judgment Article 81 Article 82

21/9/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XSocovi sarl – Société de coiffure Vichyssoise v Jean-Louis David France SA

12/7/2005 Court of Cassation: XSPEA-Syndicat des Professionnels Européens de l’Automobile v Renault/Peugeot: Competition Council’s decision upheld

28/6/2005 Court of Cassation: XGarage Gremeau SA v DaimlerChrysler France SA

15/6/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XAutomobiles de Gap et des Alpes SA, Martin-Prevel Hervé v Automobiles Citroën SA: Appeal

8/6/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XLCJ Diffusion SA v La Roche Posay SA and Cosmétique Active France SNC

24/5/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XDigitechnic sarl v Microsoft (pending following the annulment of the Competition Council’s decision: referral back to the Competition Council for further investigation)

12/4/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XAppeal by Export Press: appeal dismissed

12/4/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XFrance Télécom and SFR v Ténor: decision reversed

2/3/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XKitch Moto sarl v Suzuki France SA

22/2/2005 Paris Court of Appeal: XAppeal by JC Decaux SA: appeal dismissed

4/2/2005: Strasbourg Regional Court: XBrasseries Kronenbourg SA v JBEG sarl

3/2/2005 Strasbourg Regional Court:Brasseries Kronenbourg SA v Café le Victor Hugo sarl X

26/1/2005 and 16/2/2005 Paris Court of Appeal:Volkswagen France v Bellevue Auto SA, Claude Petit and Raphaël Petit X

154


NETHERLANDS

The Dutch courts have applied EC competition law in the judgments listed below. It

should be noted in this regard that the Dutch courts also interpret Articles 81 and 82 of

the EC Treaty when they apply the Dutch Competition Act, since this Act is based on

EC competition law. The District Court of Rotterdam has stipulated more precisely in

its rulings that a comparison with Community law is only of relevance to the applica -

tion of substantive law.

Court of The Hague, 24 March 2005, 04/694 en 04/695, Marketing Displays International

Inc. v. VR (civil proceedings)

This case concerns the enforcement of three American arbitration decisions on the

basis of the Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure and the Treaty of New York. The pro-

ceedings resulted from the appeal of the judgment of the President of the District Court

of The Hague in an interlocutory proceeding (see EC report 2004, Marketing Displays

International Inc. v VR Van Raalte Reclame B.V., 27 May 2004, KG/RK 2002-979 and

2002-1617). The Court first referred to the Eco Swiss judgment (C-126/97), in which

the Court of Justice of the European Communities held that Article 81 EC is a matter

of public policy. Therefore the Court of The Hague can annul an arbitration award if it

conflicts with public policy. The Court concurred with the judgment of the President of

the District Court of The Hague that the licensing agreement is contrary to Article

81(1) EC and refused to enforce the arbitration decisions. The Court did not examine

if the licensing agreement fulfilled the criteria laid down in Article 81(3) EC, because

the Court presumed that Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 did not have retroactive effect. In

other words, the national court could not give an exemption from Article 81(1) EC for

an agreement prior to 1 May 2004.

President of the District Court of Zwolle, 4 April 2005, 106345/KG ZA 05-92, Bicycle shop

[A] v. Polar Electro Nederland B.V. (interlocutory proceedings) (civil proceedings)

This case concerns the termination of a distribution agreement by the supplier Polar,

because distributor A did not agree to a change to the distribution system. Distributor

A wanted Polar to supply its products in conformity with the previously applicable sys-

tem. Distributor A claimed that Polar abused its dominant position contrary to Article

82 EC and Section 24 of the Dutch Competition Act. Distributor A also alleged that if

Polar is deemed to operate a selective distribution system, it does not fulfil the criteria

laid down in Article 81(3) EC or the block exemption regulation on vertical restraints.

Polar took the position that it does not operate a selective distribution system but rather

an exclusive distribution system.

The Court first referred to the fact that Article 81(1) EC does not concern agreements

which have no appreciable effect on trade (de minimis notice of the European

Commission). The Court secondly ruled that Section 7(1) of the Dutch Competition

Act, the national equivalent of the de minimis notice, is not applicable in this case. The

Court then referred to the Commission notice on vertical restraints. The Court stated

155


that Polar did not provide any information about its market share and therefore the

Court could not rely on the 30% threshold as set out in the block exemption regulation

on vertical restraints. Furthermore it found that Polar had not proved that its distribu-

tors can only sell in a particular territory, which is typical for an exclusive distribution

agreement. The Court thus ruled that Polar did not prove that it operates an exclusive

distribution system, but rather the system tends towards that of selective distribution.

Since it is not likely that the distribution system of Polar fulfils the criteria of Article

81(3) EC and Section 6(3) of the Dutch Competition Act, the Court concluded that

Polar’s distribution system is contrary to EC and Dutch competition law. Because the

alteration of the distribution system was the reason for terminating the distribution

agreement, and the new distribution system is contrary to EC and Dutch competition

law, termination of the distribution agreement was found to be contrary to Dutch civil

law with regard to the principle of fairness. The Court ordered Polar to supply its prod-

ucts to A until the old distribution agreement has been legally terminated. The Court

did not rule on whether Polar abused its dominant position.

Court of Amsterdam of 23 June 2005, 1974/04 KG plaintiff v Chevrolet Nederland B.V.

(formerly Daewoo Motor Benelux B.V.) (civil proceedings)

In 2002, Daewoo lawfully terminated a dealer agreement with the plaintiff. Thereafter,

the plaintiff made a request to Daewoo that it be appointed as an authorised Daewoo

repairer. Daewoo refused this request on the grounds that the business relationship

between Daewoo and the plaintiff was damaged to such an extent that the plaintiff did

not qualify to be appointed as an authorised repairer. The central question in this case

is whether Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 obliged Daewoo to enter into an authorised

repairer contract with the plaintiff. The Court agreed with the judgment of the

President of the District Court of Haarlem that an obligation to enter into a contract

cannot be derived from Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 (see EC report 2004, plaintiff v

Daewoo Motor Benelux B.V., 28 September 2004, 103753/KG ZA 04-347). The Court

also ruled that Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 does not prevent Daewoo from termi-

nating an authorised repairer contract. According to the Court, it should therefore be

possible for Daewoo to refuse to enter into a contract with the plaintiff, on the same

grounds as it is possible to terminate an authorised repairer contract. Because the busi-

ness relationship between Daewoo and the plaintiff was damaged to such an extent by

the plaintiff (the plaintiff, for example, refused to pay two times, and refused to pur-

chase ex-rental cars as was agreed), it found that Daewoo lawfully refused to conclude

a contract with the plaintiff.

President of the District Court of Utrecht of 3 November 2005, 201038 KG ZA 05-911,

PCA v Peugeot Nederland N.V. (interlocutory proceedings) (civil proceedings)

Peugeot Nederland is the Dutch importer of Peugeot motor cars. With regard to the

distribution, repair and maintenance of Peugeot motor cars, Peugeot has selected a lim-

ited number of distributors and repairers. For the repair and maintenance of Peugeot

motor cars, repairers need specific technical information/diagnosis equipment with

regard to the software systems implemented in Peugeot motor cars. Peugeot has two

156


versions of this equipment, namely a complete system (PPS) for authorised distributors

and repairers and a restricted version of the system (PPRI) for independent repairers.

The PCA dealers are independent repairers which sought access to the complete sys-

tem.

The central question in this case is whether Peugeot is obliged to give independent

repairers the same information as authorised repairers. Peugeot first claimed that a vio-

lation of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 only means that the agreements

between Peugeot and its authorised distributors and repairers are no longer exempt

under the regulation. However, the Court ruled that Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 has

direct effect, which means that Peugeot has to comply with the obligations as set out in

Article 4(2) of the regulation.

Peugeot secondly claimed that it did not violate Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No

1400/2002 and referred to recital 26 of the regulation. The Court ruled that the PPS and

PPRI systems are defined as know-how according to Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002.

Peugeot wrongfully rejected access to the complete system with regard to these inde-

pendent repairers. The Court considers this wrongful rejection as a type of abuse as is

mentioned in recital 26 of the regulation. According to the Court, Peugeot acted

unlawfully against the PCA dealers and must grant them access to the necessary tech-

nical information in line with Article 4(2) of the regulation.

Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal, 7 December 2005, AWB 04/237 and 04/249 9500,

Secon Group B.V./G-Star International B.V. v the NMa (administrative proceedings)

The Netherlands Competition Authority imposed a fine on Secon because Secon viola-

ted Section 6 of the Dutch Competition Act (general prohibition on cartels equivalent

to Article 81 EC). In its General Conditions of Sale, Secon included provisions which

have given rise to a resale prohibition, recommended minimum resale prices and

recommended resale prices. On appeal, the Court of Rotterdam ruled that Secon’s

General Conditions were contrary to Section 6 of the Dutch Competition Act. The

Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) ruled on appeal that

Section 6 of the Dutch Competition Act had not been breached.

The Tribunal first considered if there was an agreement and consensus between Secon

and its buyers. Citing the Sandoz and Adalat judgments of the Court of Justice, the

Tribunal ruled that there was consensus between Secon and its buyers. Secondly the

Tribunal considered whether there was an imperfect selective distribution system

which would mean that the resale prohibition was not anticompetitive. According to

Sections 12 and 13 of the Dutch Competition Act, Section 6 of the Dutch Competition

Act is not applicable to an agreement that fulfils the criteria laid down in the block

exemption regulation on vertical restraints. The Tribunal ruled that Secon does not

operate a (imperfect) selective distribution system, because Secon has not proved that

it selects its buyers pursuant to objective selective criteria, which is the main character-

istic of a selective distribution system. This meant that the resale prohibition was found

157


to be anticompetitive. Thirdly the Tribunal ruled that the minimum recommended

prices are anticompetitive. Secon’s General Conditions provide that a buyer cannot

deviate from the minimum recommended prices unless Secon has given its permission.

According to the block exemption regulation on vertical restraints, buyers must be free

to set their own resale prices. The Tribunal finally considered whether the agreement

has an appreciable effect on competition (within the meaning of the Volk Vervaecke

case-law concerning the quantitative criteria for assessing the appreciability of restric-

tions). It ruled that the specific situation in which the agreement takes effect must be

considered, in particular, the economic and judicial context in which the undertakings

operate, the nature of the services at issue, the structure of the relevant market and the

actual circumstances in which the agreement operates. The Tribunal ruled that the

Netherlands Competition Authority has not sufficiently considered the specific situa-

tion in which the agreement operated and had not sufficiently reasoned why the argu-

ment of Secon that the agreement has no appreciable effect on competition (very low

market share) is unfounded. The Tribunal ruled that the Netherlands Competition

Authority has to take a new decision.

AUSTRIA

The Cartel Court in its capacity as one of the national competition authorities has

applied Articles 81 and 82 EC in three decisions which have been transmitted to the

European Commission pursuant to Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (see also

page 130). All these decisions had been appealed and definitive judgments have already

been rendered by the higher courts in respect of each of them.

PORTUGAL


The Lisbon Commercial Court took a decision on 9 December 2005 concerning an

appeal brought against the Portuguese Competition Authority’s decision in the case of

the Portuguese Dental Association.

The Court confirmed the Portuguese Competition Authority’s finding that the

Portuguese Dental Association had established an obligation to charge minimum fees

for all dental practitioners in Portugal contrary to Article 81 EC. The Court considered,

however, that the Portuguese Dental Association had acted negligently (as opposed to

intentionally), and reduced the fine to EUR 50 000. Moreover, the Court declared void

some provisions of the Deontological Code. Furthermore, the Court confirmed the

obligation for the defendant to publish an extract of the decision in the official gazette

and in a Portuguese newspaper with national circulation, as well as on the website and

in a periodical review of the Association.

An appeal against this decision has been brought by the Portuguese Competition

Authority before the Lisbon Appeal Court.

158


SWEDEN

The Market Court

Case No 2005:5: VVS-Installatörerna v. the Swedish Competition Authority

Date 29 February 2005

The case concerned an appeal against a decision by the Swedish Competition Authority

ordering the Swedish trade association for plumbing, heating, refrigeration, electrical

and platework contractors, VVS-Installatörerna, under penalty of a fine of SEK 5 mil-

lion, to cease to provide a price list for frequently used sector-specific goods and services.

In the same decision, the Swedish Competition Authority had decided not to grant an

individual exemption for these arrangements. The Market Court removed the latter

part of the decision from the case list due to transitional provisions in the Swedish

Competition Act. As concerns the cease and desist order, the Market Court upheld the

decision but postponed by three months the date by which the remedy should take

effect.

Case No 2005:7 Swedish Competition Authority v. 5 petrol companies

Date 22 February 2005

Following a major investigation by the Swedish Competition Authority, suspicions as to

the existence of a petrol cartel in Sweden were confirmed. The Swedish Competition

Authority filed actions with the Stockholm City Court against Statoil Detaljhandel AB,

OK-Q8 AB, AB Svenska Shell, Preem Petroleum AB and Norsk Hydro Olje AB in 2000,

requesting fines for infringements of Article 6 of the Swedish Competition Act and

Article 81 of the EC Treaty. The investigation showed that representatives from the

companies had held secret meetings during the autumn of 1999 in order to plan and to

implement an agreement on prices and discounts. A large number of meetings had

taken place under the pretext of ongoing discussions on a certain environmental issue.

During the course of these meetings, the companies developed a common strategy for

lowering their costs in connection with discounts. The Market Court found that the five

petrol companies had infringed the Swedish Competition Act and set the fines for the

five companies at SEK 112 million.

The Market Court did not find that Community law was directly applicable to the case

since there was no effect on trade. It noted that the concerted practices on the one hand

covered a whole Member State and that the undertakings concerned had very large

market shares, which, according to the Court, supported the effects on trade criterion.

Elements that worked against such findings were on the other hand the fact that the

practice only concerned one rebate arrangement and that the exchange of information

only occurred during a limited time period. The Court found that under these circum-

stances there are natural trade restrictions on the relevant market which are such so as

to exclude the practice having an effect on trade within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

The Market Court did, however, conclude that even if the Court applied Article 81 EC,

the outcome of the case would have been the same.

159


The Swedish Competition Authority’s method of calculation of the fines, based on the

Commission’s guidelines on fines, was rejected by the Market Court. The Court stated

that the fines should be calculated on the basis of national legislation and not primar -

ily by applying the method used by the Commission.

Case No 2005:27: FAC Flygbussarna Airport Coaches AB a.O. v. Swedish Competition

Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority (Luftfartsverket)

Date 30 August 2005

The case concerned an appeal against a decision by the Swedish Competition Authority

finding that the access system and fees obtained for buses and coaches calling at

Arlanda airport did not constitute an abuse of the Civil Aviation Authority’s

(Luftfartsverket) dominant position. The Market Court found that it could not be

excluded that the system of such calling fees could constitute an abuse of

Luftfartsverket’s dominant position and therefore ruled in favour of the plaintiff.

The Market Court found that the circumstances of the case were such that Article 82

EC was applicable. It concluded that the assessment carried out under national law was

compatible with Article 82 EC and that the application of Article 82 EC would there-

fore lead to the same result as the application of the equivalent article in the Swedish

Competition Act (Article 19).

Case No 2005:29: B2 Bredband Holding AB v. TeliaSonera AB a.O.

Date 1 November 2005

B2 Bredband Holding AB claimed that TeliaSonera abused its dominant position on the

market for fixed-line telecoms subscription by offering new broadband customers

lower prices for fixed-line telecoms (mixed bundling). The Market Court found that B2

Bredband Holding AB failed to prove that TeliaSonera had a dominant position.

UNITED KINGDOM

Procedural issues (e.g. burden of proof, jurisdictional issues, etc.)

BHB Enterprises plc v Victor Chandler (International) Ltd – High Court

Mr Justice Laddie – 27 May 2005

Appropriate level of detail in a pleading alleging infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty

The claimant is vested with the function of administering British horseracing and to do

so, it, among other things, compiles data related to horseracing. The defendant is a

British bookmaker. The defendant stopped paying a licence fee for the use of the

claimant’s horseracing data, contending that the claimant’s database rights no longer

existed as a result of an ECJ judgment and that the licensing agreement was therefore

void. The claimant asserted that over GBP 200 000 was due to it from the defendant and

further threatened to instruct a third-party onward transmitter of the data in question

to cease supplying the defendant with the data. The claimant sued for breach of con-

tract.

160


The defendant sought the permission of the court, inter alia, to amend its defence and

counterclaim, so as to plead, inter alia, that the claimant was abusing a dominant posi-

tion contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and the Chapter II prohibition of the

Competition Act 1998. More specifically it sought permission to plead that the claimant

had a dominant position on the market for the supply of pre-race data for horseracing

in the United Kingdom, that those data were an essential facility required for any book-

making in relation to professional horseracing in the UK and that by charging particu-

larly high prices for those data and by threatening to make arrangements to prevent the

supply of those data, the claimant had abused its dominant position.

The court considered that the case set out in the proposed amendment was not prop-

erly pleaded. Under the English civil procedure rules, a pleading must contain a precise

statement of the facts on which the party relies. In some situations, such as where fraud

is alleged, a greater degree of particularity is required in the pleadings. The court con-

sidered that the latter principle also applied to allegations of infringement of Articles 81

and 82 of the EC Treaty and the corresponding domestic competition law prohibitions.

More specifically, the court considered that particular care was to be expected of a party

who pleads an infringement of Article 82 and its domestic counterpart, the Chapter II

prohibition. The court noted that cases involving such allegations can lead to lengthy

and expensive trials. Accordingly, a mere assertion of infringement in a pleading will

not be sufficient. Instead, it will be necessary for a party making such an allegation to

set out clearly and succinctly the major facts upon which it will rely. In the instant case,

the proposed amendment failed to set out a basis for asserting why the claimant’s prices

were abusively high, as opposed merely to high.

The court furthermore considered that the proposed pleading was not capable of

amendment in order to set out a viable case. In the court’s view, in a case where abu sive

pricing is alleged, an assessment of the value of the asset to both the vendor and the

purchaser must be a crucial part of the assessment. The defendant’s approach did not

take this into account at all. It simply related prices to the cost of acquisition or crea -

tion. According to the court, the defendant ignored the necessity of proving that the

prices were unfair and considered only whether they were high.

Permission to amend the pleadings to include an allegation of infringement of Article

82 and the Chapter II prohibition was therefore denied.

AtTheRaces Ltd and another v British Horseracing Board Ltd and another – High Court

The Vice Chancellor – 15 July 2005

The claimants supply broadcasting, website and other audio-visual services in relation

to British horseracing. They obtained rights in respect of certain British racecourses

which entitled them to produce audio and visual coverage of horseracing. They also

allowed viewers to place bets on those races through the Internet or through interactive

services offered on satellite television.

161


The defendants own and maintain a computerised database of information containing

a large quantity of data relating to British horseracing. A key part of the defendants’

database consists of pre-race data, which are distinct from on-course data (the latter

including information relating to the non-runners in, and the results of, races). The

claimants’ audio-visual services provide pre-race data to customers, viewers and

prospective bettors which are ultimately derived from the defendants’ database.

In the proceedings, the claimants claimed that the defendants effectively have a mono -

poly in the supply of pre-race data to those in British racing that require such informa-

tion, including, in particular, bookmakers and producers of TV channels or Internet

sites showing British racing. They further claimed that the defendants sought to impose

terms for the supply of pre-race data and made threats to procure the termination of the

supply of such data to them that amounted to an abuse of a dominant position contrary

to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and the Chapter II prohibition contained in section 18 of

the Competition Act 1998. The key allegations were excessive, unfair and discrimin -

atory pricing.

The claimants also requested an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from ter-

minating the supply of pre-race data.

The court stated that it had to consider whether the claimants had reasonable grounds

for bringing the claim and also whether the claim had a real prospect of success. When

considering these questions, the court had to guard against conducting any form of

‘mini-trial’. Having regard to this consideration, the court noted that many of the issues

in contention, in particular those relating to objective justification, involved complex

questions of fact and law and were unsuitable for determination on an application such

as the one in question. Accordingly, the court could not conclude that the claimants had

no reasonable grounds for bringing their claim nor that it had no real prospect of suc-

cess. The application for strike out of or summary judgment against the abuse of domi-

nant position claims was therefore refused.

The court also considered that the balance of convenience and the maintenance of the

status quo both favoured the grant of an interim injunction. The court considered that

if the supply of pre-race data to the claimants was stopped, then the loss of business

caused to the claimants could not be properly compensated by money. Up-to-date and

accurate information was crucial to the bookmakers and bettors alike. Furthermore, the

reasons for the decision not to strike out or give summary judgment on the claim also

supported the view that there was a seriously arguable case for the grant of an injunc-

tion at trial.

162


Hewlett Packard Development Company LP and others v Expansys UK Limited – High

Court – Mr Justice Laddie – 15 July 2005

No sufficient nexus between alleged abuse and exercise of IP right resulting in grant of

summary judgment

The claimants applied for summary judgment in their claim for infringement of regis-

tered trade marks. The claimants make and market electronic personal organisers

under the trade marks HP and iPAQ. The defendant is an on-line reseller of electronic

equipment and sourced supplies of the claimants’ personal organisers in Asia and of -

fered to sell and sold them in the UK. The claimants argued that this infringed the clai-

mants’ registered trade marks and that there was no real or credible defence to the

claim.

The defendant inter alia claimed that as a result of the claimants’ allegedly anticom -

petitive behaviour, the claimants were not entitled to deploy their registered trade

marks against otherwise unlawful importation of the trade-mark bearing goods. More

specifically, the defendant argued that HP, the first claimant, was abusing a dominant

position by fixing the price of its personal organisers.

Under the English civil procedure rules, summary judgment may be appropriate when

the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no

other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial. For the

purposes of applying this test to the competition law arguments raised by the defen-

dant, the court made an assumption that there was at least an arguable breach of the

competition rules (though all issues relevant to this assumption were vigorously dispu-

ted by the claimants). The court nevertheless noted that that would not provide a

de fence to the claim unless there was a relevant nexus between that breach and the

claimants’ cause of action.

The court considered that no such nexus existed. The court noted that even if there was

an abuse of a dominant position (which again was denied by the claimants), what is

prohibited was the abuse, not the dominant position or the abuser’s ability to continue

in the relevant market and to exploit his various property rights. Thus, if the defendant’s

allegations concerning price-fixing were made at trial, then the claimants would have

been ordered to stop fixing prices. However, this would not have disentitled them to use

their trade mark rights, as such rights did not determine whether or how they fixed

their prices in the UK. Accordingly, there was no real prospect that, even if it were to

make out its allegation of abuse, the defendant could use that as a defence to the

claimants’ claim. Furthermore, there was no other compelling reason why the action

should go to trial. Accordingly, having rejected other non-competition law arguments

by the defendant, the court granted summary judgment for the claimants.

163


Sportswear Company Spa and Four Marketing Ltd v Sarbeet Ghattaura (trading as ‘GS3’)

and Stonestyle Ltd – High Court

Mr Justice Warren – 3 October 2005

Lack of sufficient nexus between alleged infringement and exercise of intellectual proper-

ty rights sufficient grounds for striking out competition law defences

The court had to consider an application by the claimants in a trade mark infringement

case for strike out of paragraphs of defences alleging an infringement of Article 81(1) of

the EC Treaty. The claimants in the relevant action were the owner and distributors of

a leading sportswear clothing trade mark and clothing bearing that mark. The

claimants had brought an action against the defendants for selling clothing bearing the

claimants’ trade mark which had the labels defaced and/or swing tags cut out and

defaced. The labels give out ‘Garment Codes’ which contain information relating to the

order and quantity of the order and from which Sportswear would be able to ascertain

to which of its distributors/customers the clothing was originally sold. Although the

claimants did not deny that the clothing sold was authentic, they nevertheless claimed

that notwithstanding the exhaustion of rights principle, under UK trade mark legisla-

tion they could oppose further dealings in the trade-mark bearing goods, owing to the

allegedly damaged state of the clothing.

The defendants relied upon a number of defences, including an assertion that certain

distribution agreements made between the claimants infringed Article 81(1). They fur-

ther argued that the relevant provisions of UK trade mark legislation allowing a trade

mark proprietor to oppose further dealings in goods in certain cases had to be con-

strued against Article 81(1). According to the defendants, the real reason for the trade

mark infringement was to force the defendants to retain the Garment Codes and thus

enable the claimants to identify the persons to whom the latter originally supplied the

garments. The defendants argued that, in that way, the claimants will then be able to cut

off supplies and thus eliminate the defendants’ business.

The claimants objected to the competition law defence on two grounds: (1) that the

effect on inter-state trade requirement had not been pleaded and (2) that even if an

Article 81(1) infringement could be proven, it would not provide a defence to trade

mark infringement on the ground of lack of sufficient nexus.

The court did not consider it necessary to consider at length the effect on inter-state

trade point, though the defendant submitted amendments and particulars to deal with

this defect, which it asserted was merely a pleading point. Instead, the court focused on

the nexus point.

While the court recognised that Community case-law on free movement of goods might

be relevant to the issues in suit, it rejected any relevance of Article 81(1) to the proceed-

ings. The court considered that although enforcement of a trade mark with a purpose of

preventing dealers from supplying persons carrying on parallel trades may or may not

164


be a breach of Community competition law, it was not to the point in relation to those

arguments whether, when carrying out that purpose, the claimants were parties to an

agreement which happened to infringe Article 81(1). In the view of the court, if the

defendants were right in saying that there is artificial partitioning of markets, then they

may have good defences to the infringement actions under Community law, but those

defences would not have anything to do with Article 81(1). Furthermore, if the defen-

dants did not have good defences under Community law other than under Article 81(1),

then, in the court’s view, Article 81(1) would be unlikely to assist them either.

AtTheRaces and another v British Horseracing Board and another – High Court

Mr Justice Etherton – 21 December 2005

The claimants supply broadcasting, website and other audio-visual services in relation

to British horseracing. They obtained rights in respect of certain British racecourses

which entitled them to produce audio and visual coverage of horseracing. They also

allowed viewers to place bets on those races through the Internet or through interactive

services offered on satellite television.

The defendants own and maintain a computerised database of information containing

a large quantity of data relating to British horseracing. A key part of the defendants’

database consists of pre-race data, which are distinct from on-course data (the latter

including information relating to the non-runners in, and the results of, races). The

claimants’ audio-visual services provide pre-race data to customers, viewers and pros-

pective bettors which are ultimately derived from the defendants’ database.

In the proceedings, the claimants claimed that the defendants effectively have a mono -

poly in the supply of pre-race data to those in British racing that require such inform -

ation, including, in particular, bookmakers and producers of TV channels or Internet

sites showing British racing. They further claimed that the defendants sought to impose

terms for the supply of pre-race data and made threats to procure the termination of the

supply of such data to them that amounted to an abuse of a dominant position contrary

to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and the Chapter II prohibition contained in section 18 of

the Competition Act 1998. The key allegations were excessive, unfair and discriminato-

ry pricing. Prior to the trial, certain elements of the dispute were settled. The judgment

therefore only related to the pari-mutuel pool and fixed-odds betting services offered

by the claimants.

The court concluded that the relevant market was that for the supply of UK pre-race

data to those in the horseracing industry that required such information for the ser vices

they provide to their customers (in particular bookmakers and producers of TV

channels or Internet sites relating to horseracing). In the view of the court, that conclu-

sion was confirmed by the application of the SSNIP test. According to the court, the

geographical extent of the product market was, for the purpose of the proceedings, all

countries outside the UK and Ireland, but it made no difference to the outcome of the

case if that was incorrect and the geographical extent of the market was the world.

165


The court further held that BHB was dominant in that market. In the view of the court,

the claimants abused their market dominance by threatening to terminate the supply of

pre-race data to the defendants, even though the defendants were existing customers of

the claimants and the pre-race data were an essential facility controlled by the defen-

dants, without which the claimants would be eliminated from the market. In the view

of the court, there was no objective justification for such conduct by the defendants. It

was irrelevant, according to the court, that the claimants and the defendants were not

competitors. The defendants sought to justify their proposals as to price, which the

claimants refused to accept, as being reasonable charges on the claimants’ overseas cus-

tomers – who would otherwise be ‘free riders’ – collected through the agency of the

claimants. According to the court, that was not a correct description of them as a mat-

ter of substance or form: they would be charges on the claimants in substance and form.

Further, in the opinion of the court, the prices proposed prior to the commencement of

the proceedings were unfairly excessive, and they also discriminated unfairly against

the claimants. In addition, the defendants continued to insist, until after the com-

mencement of the proceedings, that the claimants enter into an intellectual property

licence from the defendants, even though the use by the claimants of the defendants’

pre-race data would not infringe any intellectual property right of the defendants.

More specifically, the prices charged from time to time by the defendants to the claim -

ants prior to the commencement of the proceedings were excessive and unfair, and so

constituted an abuse of the defendants’ dominant position on the market, because they

were significantly in excess of the economic value of the pre-race data and not other-

wise justified. The economic value of the data was to be measured, on the facts of the

case, by the cost to the defendants of producing their database (about GBP 5 million)

together with a reasonable return on that cost. The defendants’ proposed charges to the

claimants were so far in excess of any justifiable allocation to the claimants of that

amount as to be plainly excessive.

The court added that in the absence of any public interest defence under Article 86 of

the EC Treaty or paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 of the Competition Act 1998 (which in

domestic law corresponds to Article 86(2)), the fact that a decision against the defen-

dants in the present case would have serious consequences for the proposals and plans

of the government and the defendants to modernise British racing by ‘commercialising’

the defendants’ assets and replacing the statutory levy on bookmakers cannot affect the

outcome of the proceedings. Nor, in the view of the court, could it make any difference

to a proper application of Article 82 and the Chapter II prohibition of the 1998 Act that

the defendants had been motivated, in their proposals to the claimants, by the wider

interests of British racing rather than private profit.

The court therefore found for the claimants and invited arguments as to the form of any

appropriate relief.

166


Reactions to the Report on Competition Policy 2004

A – EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

European Parliament resolution on the Commission’s Report on Competition Policy2004 (2005/2209(INI))

1. Rapporteur: Alain Lipietz

2. Reference number: A6-0065/2006

3. Date of adoption of resolution: 4.4.2006

4. Subject: This is a parliamentary resolution based on a non-legislative ‘own-initiative

report’ emanating from the EP Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

(ECON) (rapporteur: Alain Lipietz, Greens/EFA, F). The resolution comments on

the Commission’s Report on Competition Policy 2004.

5. Brief analysis of resolution: The resolution supports the competition policy pur-

sued by the EU in general and welcomes the modernising reforms carried out by the

Commission in the field of competition. It also welcomes the extension of the

Community competition policy to the 10 new Member States since 1 May 2004. It

urges the Commission to promote the correct application of the competition rules

in all Member States.

It calls for a more active and growing role for the Parliament in the development of

competition policy and repeats Parliament’s aspiration to have enhanced co-deci-

sion powers in this field.

It urges the Commission to keep a close watch on key sectors, such as telecommu-

nications. It expresses concern at the continued failure to achieve full liberalisation

in the EU gas and electricity markets but welcomes the sector inquiries notably into

the gas and electricity markets. It suggests that in the case of major networked

public services, competition must be guided by strong public service obligations.

It repeats the Committee’s call for the Commission to set out guidance interpreting

the Altmark judgment and its fourth criterion in particular.

It recognises the important contribution an effective competition policy makes to

the achievement of the Lisbon strategy. It urges the Commission to defend its doc-

trine in future negotiations on the organisation of international trade and to pro-

mote international cooperation in competition matters.

167

6. Response to requests and overview of action taken or intended by theCommission

168


Essential points of EP resolution

Points 3 and 25: argues for a more active and growingrole for the Parliament in the development of competi-tion policy, notably by enhancing the co-decisionpowers of the Parliament.

Position of the Commission

The Commission welcomes the fact that Parliament fol-lows competition policy developments closely. TheTreaty does not, however, foresee a co-decision proce-dure in the field of competition. The Commissionnevertheless has a policy of informing Parliament of itsmajor policy initiatives in this area and pays particularattention to the relevant opinions of the Parliament.

Point 5: regrets the fact that the 2004 Commissionreport still lacks an assessment of the Commission’smain decisions on the relevant markets, particularly inthe case of mergers and State aid.

In relation to mergers: the Competition DG recentlycarried out a major study evaluating the design andimplementation of merger commitments accepted bythe Commission in the context of its merger decisionsover a five-year period, 1996 to 2000. The objectives ofthe study were to identify with the benefit of hindsight:(i) any serious issues arising in the design and imple-mentation of remedies; (ii) the effectiveness of theCommission’s merger remedies policy during the refe-rence period; and (iii) areas for further improvement ofthe Commission’s existing merger remedies policy andpractice. The study was published on 21 October 2005.

In relation to State aid, and in the framework of theimplementation of the State aid action plan, theCommission aims at strengthening its economicapproach to better focus and target State aid towardsthe objectives of the relaunched Lisbon strategy. Thedecision and framework on public service compensati-on for services of general economic interest provide fora review, based on impact, to take place beforeDecember 2009. If necessary, the decision may beamended in light of this review.

Points 7 and 8: regrets that there are still great differen-ces between how the Commission intends to interpretthe test in the Court of Justice's Altmark judgment inpractice; calls on the Commission to issue a clear andprecise interpretative communication on the fourthcriterion set out in the Altmark judgment; regrets thatthe 2004 Report on Competition Policy did not dedicatea separate chapter to a discussion of services of gene-ral interest.

A package on public service compensation for servicesof general economic interest was published on 29 November 2005. This package is based on theAltmark judgment of the Court of Justice. It includes aDecision which removes the obligation for MemberStates to notify compensation under certain thresh -olds where conditions including a clear definition ofthe public service obligation and a guarantee of noover-compensation are met. The Community frame-work for State aid in the form of public service com-pensation sets out clear guidance on when compensa-tion over these thresholds will be considered compati-ble aid.

The Commission considers that these texts bring legalcertainty as regards the compatibility of State aid in theform of public service compensation. As concerns theapplication of the fourth Altmark criterion (which,when met, means that compensation is not State aid),the Commission will provide guidance when adoptingdecisions on individual cases. Such decisions will, asusual, be subject to review by the European Courts.

169

A – European Parliament

Point 14: encourages the Commission to clarify thesometimes obscure relationships among NCAs and‘national champions’, so as to remove any suspicion ofcomplicity and safeguard consumers’ interests.

Cooperation between the Commission and the NCAswithin the European Competition Network with re -spect to the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC func -tions well. The Commission has already made goodprogress in terms of creating a common competitionculture based on the application of the Communitycompetition rules.

The Commission has no indications that NCAs arefavouring national champions in the context of theapplication of Articles 81 and 82 EC. To the extent thatthey were to do so, instruments already exist that allowthe Commission to take action. NCAs are obliged toinform the Commission before adopting negative deci-sions based on these provisions. The Commission canwithdraw a case from the NCA and deal with it itself, ifan NCA were to give favourable treatment to a nationalchampion in the context of an enforcement action or ifan NCA were to unduly draw out an investigation inorder to protect a national champion. Against thisbackground, the Commission does not at present seeany need to introduce new forms of regulation withregard to the NCAs in the context of the decentralisa -tion of the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC.

Point 24: urges the Commission to continue to reviewthe operation of the judicial system in relation to com-petition cases in order to consider improvements tothe speed of access to justice and in order to maximisethe experience and skills of the judiciary dealing withcompetition cases.

The operation of the judicial system is primarily a mat-ter in which the Member States (as concerns procedu-res in national courts) or the European Court of Justice(as concerns procedures at European level) take the ini-tiative.The Commission does however contribute throughmeasures to support national courts in applying ECcompetition law. Through a dedicated funding pro-gramme, the Commission actively supports training fornational judges concerning EC competition law.


170


B – European Economic and Social Committee

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Report on Competition Policy 2004 and reply by the Commission

Essential points of the EESC opinion

2. The Committee notes that the report underlines thelink between competition policy and the revisedLisbon strategy, but suggests that this link should bebetter explained and clarified. In particular theCommittee queries whether competition policy shouldreflect the political priorities of a given moment orinstead adopt its own independent approach.

Commission position

EC competition policy, which serves to protect compe-tition on the market for the benefit of consumers, is aCommunity objective in its own right, as set out inArticle 3(1)(g) EC. Competition policy makes a signifi-cant contribution to the Lisbon process by protectingcompetition which in turn puts pressure on firms to beefficient and innovative. When the report emphasisesthe link between competition policy and the Lisbonprocess, this is not an indication that the former isbeing distorted to fit the needs of the latter, but simplythat there is an inherent link between competitivemarkets and competitiveness.

2.2.4. The Committee notes that the independence ofcompetition policy must be maintained and strength -ened, but that it must also be linked to other EU poli-cies, such as those aimed at supporting consumers,economic development, innovation, growth, employ-ment and social cohesion. The Committee notes in par-ticular that what is needed is support for cooperationbetween SMEs and for groupings of such businesses,which often constitutes the only way in which suchcompanies can meet their competitors on a level play-ing field.

EC competition policy takes into account consumers’interests. But it cannot take the place of an autono-mous consumer protection policy implementedthrough specialised legislation, such as rules on mis -leading advertising. Concerning employment, theCommission considers that the best way of promotinglong-term employment is through competitiveEuropean markets.

Issues relating to economic development throughinnovation and the contribution of SMEs are high onthe Commission’s agenda as part of the ongoing com-prehensive reform of the State aid rules. Although awhole range of policy measures are needed to deliverthese objectives, well-targeted State support has a partto play in helping overcome genuine market failures. InJuly 2006 the Commission adopted new guidelines forrisk capital, and the aim is to adopt an R&D and innova-tion framework by the end of 2006, which will includerules on aid for innovative clusters. Both instrumentsapply a more refined economic approach to helpdeliver ‘less and better targeted’ State aid.


171

2.2.7. The Committee indicates that the CompetitionDG should carry out economic and social assessmentsto follow up the cases on which it is working, and itshould carry out impact studies on its most importantdecisions.

It should be noted that in the application of EC compe-tition law, the Commission’s fundamental task is toensure that there is no distortion of competition withinthe internal market. Ensuring the proper functioning ofthe markets ultimately benefits consumers enablingthem to obtain the best offer at the best price. It alsoleads to an optimal allocation of resources at Europeanlevel, contributing to the Lisbon objective of moregrowth and jobs.

In general, the Commission has enhanced the role ofrefined economic analysis in its assessments of compa-tibility with EC competition rules. This was a coreobjective of the reform of the antitrust rules whichentered into force in 2004, and is now being imple-mented in the State aid area as part of the ongoingcomprehensive reform launched with the State aidaction plan.

In mergers, the Competition DG recently carried out amajor study evaluating the design and implementa -tion of merger commitments accepted by the Commis -sion in the context of its merger decisions over a five-year period, 1996 to 2000. The objectives of the studywere to identify with the benefit of hindsight: (i) anyserious issues arising in the design and implementa -tion of remedies; (ii) the effectiveness of the Commis -sion’s merger remedies policy during the referenceperiod; and (iii) areas for further improvement of theCommission’s existing merger remedies policy andpractice. The study was published on 21 October 2005.

As announced in the State aid action plan, theCommission has stepped up its ex post monitoring ofState aid decisions and of the group exemption regula-tions. For a number of years, the Commission has en -sured a systematic monitoring of the execution by theMember States of all State aid recovery decisions. Nowit has also started to monitor the execution of conditio-nal State aid decisions and the respect by the MemberStates of the conditions laid down under the groupexemption regulations.

3.3.2. Since an application for leniency in relation to acartel submitted to one competition authority doesnot apply to others, the Committee considers that it isnecessary to upgrade the mechanism so as to cater formultiple requests from companies. The procedures inplace must be simplified so that a harmonised systemcan be implemented for ‘informing’ on a cartel.

The Commission is aware that under the current sys-tem many leniency applicants may choose to file withseveral European competition authorities.

The Competition DG is – together with colleagues inthe national competition authorities – carefully reflec-ting on what can be done to address this issue. Ideally,the applicant should not be required to submit full andcomplete leniency applications to authorities that willin the end not deal with the case. A solution to this mayrequire a degree of adaptation of the different existingprogrammes.

The objective is to have a clear view of what can beachieved in this respect by the end of 2006.

172


3.5.2. The Committee considers that, in the context ofmerger control, the increased number of mergers inthe retail sector in the last years must lead to the aimsof competition policy being brought into line withthose of consumer policy in order to ensure that mar-ket supply remains constant.

In assessing mergers the Commission takes into parti-cular account the interests of consumers. Any mergerthat might result in price increases or a reduction insupply to consumers would be examined very care -fully.

3.6. Concerning the reorganisation of the CompetitionDG, the Committee makes a number of points.

The Committee notes that it appears that theCompetition DG does not have enough qualified staffto examine cases involving the new Member States, inparticular merger cases.

The Committee considers that the limited informationon mergers provided on the Commission website can-not be considered an adequate means of gathering theinformed opinions of civil society and of the variousorganisations concerned, as part of a process of goodgovernance.

With regard to the publication of national judgmentson competition on the Commission website, theCommittee notes that the stated aims of informing andeducating have not been met (Article 15(2) ofRegulation (EC) No 1/2003).

Within the wider context of the Commission's policy to recruit qualified personnel from the 10 MemberStates which joined the Union on 1 May 2004, the Competition DG has had a consistent policy ofrecruiting such personnel, subject to budgetary constraints. It should be noted that the Commissionhas consistently met the strict timetables for assessingmerger cases.

As concerns information on mergers, in addition torequests for information which the Competition DGsends to competitors and consumers, it also publishesa preliminary notice of concentrations in the OJ, whichenables organisations representing different intereststo submit comments if they think it appropriate.

The Competition DG systematically makes available onits website all national judgments that it receives. It istrue that the Competition DG has received very few or no judgments from some Member States. TheCompetition DG has been in touch with national com-petition authorities about this issue. For some MemberStates (particularly those Member States which joinedthe Union on 1 May 2004) this may be because therehave been no judgments. The Competition DG hasalways made it clear (e.g. in Council debates) that itwould not be possible to provide translations of thesejudgments. Alongside the implementation ofRegulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission is engagedin providing financial support for the training of natio-nal judges in EC competition law, from the Communitybudget.

3.7.2. The Committee emphasises that it is crucial toimprove transparency concerning information given tocompanies receiving individual State aid.

Detailed decisions are publicly available either on theCommission’s website in the authentic language of theMember State concerned or in the Official Journal. TheCommission also publishes a ‘State Aid weekly e-News’containing the latest developments in the area of Stateaid.

Furthermore, the recently-adopted risk capital guide -lines contain new transparency provisions wherebyMember States are requested to provide a list of enter-prise beneficiaries of all aid measures which theCommission will then publish on the Internet.

173


3.7.5. The Committee deplores the fact that theCommission does not consider carefully enough theeffects of State aid on the end consumer.

The decision and framework on public service com-pensation for services of general economic interestadopted by the Commission in 2005 ensure that com-panies can receive public support to cover all costsincurred, including a reasonable profit, in carrying outpublic service obligations. Provided that the conditi-ons set out in the decision are met – and in particularthat there is no over-compensation – Member Statesare able to grant compensation to small-scale publicservices, hospitals and social housing without notify-ing the Commission. The measures are part of a broa-der Commission policy ensuring that citizens and com-panies can benefit from the provision of high-qualityservices of general interest in an open EU-wide marketannounced in the Commission’s May 2004 White Paperon services of general interest.

One of the aims behind the Commission’s recent pro-posal to develop rules for State aid to innovation is toimprove the possibilities for Member States to en hanceeconomic efficiency by providing such aid where it isgenuinely needed to meet a market failure, and there-by contribute to growth and jobs. This will bring clearbenefits to consumers.

European Commission

Supplement to the Report on Competition Policy 2005

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2007 — 173 pp. — 16.2 x 22.9 cm

ISBN 92-894-4220-4

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg:

Report on Competition Policy (available in 20 languages): Free of charge.



HHow to obtain EU publications Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.

2005

Supplement to theReport onCompetition Policy

Su

pp

lem

en

t to th

e R

ep

ort o

n C

om

pe

tition

Po

licy 2

00

5

European Commission

KD

-AC

-06

-00

1-E

N-C

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg

Report on Competition Policy (available in 20 languages): Free of charge



Documents

Supplement to the Report on Competition Policy 2005