ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal C 107

of the European Union

Volume 55 English edition Information and Notices 13 April 2012

Notice No Contents Page

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 107/01 Euro exchange rates ...... 1

2012/C 107/02 Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 1 July 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier — Rapporteur: Cyprus 2

2012/C 107/03 Final Report of the Hearing Officer — COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier ...... 4

2012/C 107/04 Summary of Commission Decision of 13 July 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier) (notified under document C(2011) 4997) ( 1) ...... 6

V Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 107/05 Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 ) ...... 11

Price: 1 EN EUR 3 ( ) Text with EEA relevance (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (continued) Page

2012/C 107/06 Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1) ...... 12

2012/C 107/07 Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark) ( 1) ...... 13

Corrigenda

2012/C 107/08 Corrigendum to the summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2007 to 31 December 2007 (OJ C 19, 25.1.2008) ...... 14

EN ( 1 ) Text with EEA relevance 13.4.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/1

IV

(Notices)

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates ( 1) 12 April 2012 (2012/C 107/01)

1 euro =

Currency Exchange rate Currency Exchange rate

USD US dollar 1,3153 AUD Australian dollar 1,2645 JPY Japanese yen 106,54 CAD Canadian dollar 1,3132 DKK Danish krone 7,4384 HKD Hong Kong dollar 10,2128 GBP Pound sterling 0,82470 NZD New Zealand dollar 1,6001 SEK Swedish krona 8,8912 SGD Singapore dollar 1,6507 KRW South Korean won 1 500,58 CHF Swiss franc 1,2027 ZAR South African rand 10,4472 ISK Iceland króna CNY Chinese yuan renminbi 8,2961 NOK Norwegian krone 7,6100 HRK Croatian kuna 7,4758 BGN Bulgarian lev 1,9558 IDR Indonesian rupiah 12 055,30 CZK Czech koruna 24,803 MYR Malaysian ringgit 4,0360 HUF Hungarian forint 296,90 PHP Philippine peso 56,176 LTL Lithuanian litas 3,4528 RUB Russian rouble 38,7840 LVL Latvian lats 0,6989 THB Thai baht 40,564 PLN Polish zloty 4,1802 BRL Brazilian real 2,4075 RON Romanian leu 4,3745 MXN Mexican peso 17,2124 TRY Turkish lira 2,3664 INR Indian rupee 67,8550

( 1 ) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. C 107/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.4.2012

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on mergers given at its meeting of 1 July 2011 regarding a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier Rapporteur: Cyprus (2012/C 107/02)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concen­ tration within the meaning of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has an EU dimension within the meaning of the Merger Regulation.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the definitions of the relevant product markets are:

(a) the market for magazine paper, comprising all grades of coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’) machine finished coated ((‘MFC’) paper) and supercalendered paper (‘SC’), including SC-B equivalent paper, whereas it is not necessary to conclude whether the market should be defined more broadly as the market for magazine paper or more narrowly as a market for SC paper (including SC-B equivalent paper) in this case;

(b) the market for newsprint, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

(c) the market for acquisition of recovered paper, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

(d) the market for wood procurement, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

(e) the market for production of wood pulp, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

(f) the market for generation and wholesale of electricity, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

(g) the market for production of wood panels, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case;

(h) the market for production of sawn timber, whereas it is not necessary to conclude on the exact product market definition in this case.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purpose of assessing the present operation, the definitions of the relevant geographic markets are:

(a) for all markets for magazine paper and its potential segments: the EEA plus Switzerland;

(b) for all markets for newsprint: the EEA plus Switzerland;

(c) for all markets for acquisition of recovered paper: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

(d) for all markets for wood procurement: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

(e) for all markets for production of wood pulp: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

(f) for all markets for generation and wholesale of electricity: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case; 13.4.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/3

(g) for all markets for production of wood panels: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case;

(h) for all markets for production of sawn timber: it is not necessary to conclude on the exact geographic market definition in this case.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proposed concentration does not signifi­ cantly impede effective competition in the internal market or in a substantial part of it in the following markets:

(a) all markets for magazine paper, regardless of the precise market definition;

(b) all markets for newsprint;

(c) all markets for acquisition of recovered paper;

(d) all markets for wood procurement;

(e) all markets for production of wood pulp;

(f) all markets for generation and wholesale of electricity;

(g) all markets for production of wood panels;

(h) all markets for production of sawn timber.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's view that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

7. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. C 107/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.4.2012

Final Report of the Hearing Officer ( 1) COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier (2012/C 107/03)

BACKGROUND On 28 January 2011, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation ( 2) by which the undertaking UPM-Kymmene Corporation (‘UPM’ or the ‘notifying party’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Myllykoski Corporation (‘Myllykoski’) and Rhein Papier GmbH (‘Rhein Papier’) (also jointly referred to as the ‘other involved parties’). On 4 March 2011, the Commission adopted a decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

WRITTEN PROCEDURE A statement of objections (‘SO’) was sent to the notifying party on 5 May 2011 in which the Commission set out its preliminary conclusion that the notified concentration would significantly impede effective competition in relation to supercalendered (‘SC’) paper. The concerns existed whether or not SC paper would be considered a separate market or part of a larger product market comprising other types of magazine paper (SC, machine finish coated (‘MFC’) and coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’)). UPM replied to the SO by the set deadline, on 20 May 2011.

Access to file Access to file was granted in part on 6 May 2011. Supplementary documents were provided to UPM on 12, 18 and 19 May. UPM complained to Competition DG about such allegedly late access to the file. However, as UPM has neither referred this to me, nor made any convincing argument as to why it could not defend itself effectively, I consider that the delay in accessing parts of the file was not prejudicial to UPM's rights of defence.

Hearing of third parties I granted interested third party status to a customer of the parties, namely Bertelsmann AG, and certain of its subsidiaries, including Gruner + Jahr AG & Co, Mohn media Mohndruck GmbH and Prinovis Ltd & Co KG (hereafter jointly referred to as ‘Bertelsmann’).

I also granted interested third party status to certain creditors of Myllykoski ( 3) and Rhein Papier ( 4), after they had explained to me their exceptional involvement in this transaction, and how their interest would be specifically affected by the outcome of the proceedings.

One day before the oral hearing I also received an application by a customer of Myllykoski to attend the oral hearing. In light of the insufficiently reasoned application, the fact that the request was submitted at such a late stage, and that the customer had not contributed to the investigation thus far ( 5), I had serious doubts that this customer would be able to contribute significantly to the clarification of the relevant facts of the case. I therefore decided not to invite this customer to the oral hearing. I nevertheless informed the customer that it could be granted interested third party status and be given the opportunity to be heard in writing, subject to filing a formal application, which, however, the customer did not do.

The oral hearing In its reply to the SO, the notifying party requested to be heard in an oral hearing, which was held on 27 May 2011. Upon their request, I also invited the interested third parties (Bertelsmann and the Myllykoski and Rhein Papier lenders), whom I considered could usefully contribute to the clarification of the relevant facts.

( 1 ) Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21). ( 2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1). ( 3 ) Bayerische Landesbank, Sampo Bank plc, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ) and Nordic Investment Bank (‘Myllykoski Lenders (Lead Banks)’), on behalf of the Myllykoski lenders. ( 4 ) Nordea Bank Finland plc (in its capacity as facility agent for the financial institutions that are creditors of Rhein Papier). ( 5 ) Notably, the customer had not responded to questionnaires sent by Competition DG during the proceedings. 13.4.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/5

Upon reasoned requests of each UPM, Myllykoski and the Myllykoski and Rhein Papier lenders, parts of their presentations were held in camera.

THE DRAFT DECISION The draft decision provides for an unconditional clearance of the proposed concentration. The objections set out in the SO have been reviewed — and abandoned — by the Commission in light of, inter alia, the written comments of the notifying party, the contribution of all participants in the oral hearing, and further investigation carried out post-SO.

CONCLUSION I have not received any complaint from the notifying party, the other involved parties, or any interested third party about the exercise of their right to be heard. In view thereof and taking into account the observations mentioned above, I consider that the right to be heard of all participants to the proceedings has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 4 July 2011.

Michael ALBERS C 107/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.4.2012

Summary of Commission Decision of 13 July 2011 declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier) (notified under document C(2011) 4997) (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2012/C 107/04)

On 13 July 2011 the Commission adopted a Decision in a merger case under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings ( 1 ), and in particular Article 8(1) of that Regulation. A non-confidential version of the full Decision can be found in the authentic language of the case and in the working languages of the Commission on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition, at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html

I. THE PARTIES two-thirds of their aggregate Union-wide turnover within one and the same Member State. The notified operation (1) UPM is a worldwide company headquartered in Finland therefore has a Union dimension. which develops, produces and markets paper products. It also produces pulp, electricity, label-stock, sawn timber IV. THE PROCEDURE and wood panel products. (6) By decision of 4 March 2011, the Commission raised serious doubts as to the compatibility of the concentration (2) Myllykoski is a privately-owned Finnish company. It with the internal market and initiated proceedings develops, produces and markets paper products. It also pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘the produces pulp. It has mills in Finland, Germany and the Article 6(1)(c) Decision’). UPM submitted its written United States and sales activities worldwide. comments on the Article 6(1)(c) decision on 22 March 2011. (3) Rhein Papier, located in Germany, produces paper (7) On 15 April 2011, UPM submitted a set of documents products in Germany and has sales worldwide. It is called ‘Papers on a number of key issues’ and announced managed by Myllykoski and is controlled by the same submitting another economic study. The study was shareholders that own Myllykoski. Myllykoski and Rhein submitted on 18 April 2011. Papier are referred to as the Myllykoski Group. (8) On 5 May 2011, the Commission adopted a Statement of II. THE OPERATION Objections pursuant to Article 18 of the Merger Regu­ lation. By submission of 20 May 2011 UPM responded (4) On 28 January 2011, the Commission received a formal to the Statement of Objections and asked for an Oral notification pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation Hearing. by which UPM-Kymmene Corporation (‘UPM’) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that Regulation (9) On 27 May 2011 an Oral Hearing took place. As third sole control over Myllykoski Corporation (‘Myllykoski’) parties, the Myllykoski Group, its lending banks and and Rhein Papier GmbH (‘Rhein Papier’). Bertelsmann AG including subsidiaries of the Bertelsmann Group attended the Oral Hearing.

III. UNION DIMENSION (10) The meeting of the Advisory Committee took place on 1 July 2011. (5) The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million ( 2). V. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million, but they do not achieve more than A. Relevant markets (11) Both parties are active in the production and distribution 1 ( ) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1. of magazine paper and newsprint. The parties’ activities ( 2 ) Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Merger Regulation and the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice overlap in acquisition of recovered paper, wood under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of procurement and wood pulp production. The concen­ concentrations between undertakings (OJ C 95, 16.4.2008, p. 1). tration also gives rise to several vertical relationships. 13.4.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/7

1. Magazine paper

(12) As regards magazine paper both parties are active in all grades except for wood-free paper (‘WFC’) and machine finished coated paper (‘MFC’), which the Myllykoski Group does not produce.

(13) As can be seen from the graph above, the various grades and specifications of magazine paper make up a continuum of different qualities and prices, which in general terms runs from WFC paper (used mainly for magazine covers or very high-quality corporate presentations such as annual reports), through coated mechanical reels (‘CMR’), and supercalendered paper grades (‘SC’). CMR and SC papers are primarily used for publication of consumer magazines, catalogues and advertising/ direct marketing materials ( 1 ).

(14) These paper grades can be further segmented into sub-grades, so that CMR is subdivided into light weight coated (‘LWC’), medium weight coated (‘MWC’) and heavy weight coated (‘HWC’). In between SC and CMR there is machine-finished coated (‘MFC’) paper which may be considered as a different category ( 2). SC paper includes a number of sub-grades such as SC-A+ (and even SC-A++), SC-A, and SC-B. Recently, a number of products have been introduced on the market which, although not produced on SC machines and not necessarily classified as SC papers, compete at the lower end with the SC grades and are referred to as SC-B Equivalent papers or SC-C grades.

(15) The Commission, as in previous cases, considered that WFC should not be included in the magazine paper market in view of the different paper characteristics, different applications, price differences and limited — if any — supply side switches between WFC and other types of magazine paper.

(16) The Commission also considered that newsprint is not to be included in the magazine paper market as the market investigation has shown that both the demand and supply side substitution is limited.

(17) The Commission's investigation confirmed that the SC paper segment should not be further sub- divided as all SC paper grades belong to the same market based on considerable demand and supply side substitution.

( 1 ) Both CMR papers and the SC papers are produced from natural (wood containing) pulp. For the lower qualities pulp from recycled paper may also form part of the input. SC papers, in contrast to CMR papers, are not coated. The production of all kinds of paper involves the use of calenders at the end of the manufacturing process to smooth the surface. A calender is a pair of rolls that applies pressure to the paper. In SC paper production at least two pairs of rubber covered rolls (soft nips) are used and often more. ( 2 ) MFC is of minor importance in terms of volume and usually not reported separately, but included in LWC. Myllykoski Group does not produce MFC paper. C 107/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.4.2012

(18) Further, the Commission considered that based on very 3. Other markets similar product characteristics, the identical applications, price ranges and the switching between the SC-B (25) The Commission concluded that there is no need to Equivalent and the SC grades, SC-B Equivalent should be precisely define the relevant product and geographic included within the SC paper segment and thus considered market in relation to: (i) acquisition of recovered paper part of the magazine paper spectrum. and (ii) wood procurement and (iii) production of wood pulp, (iv) wood panel products and (v) sawn timber as in this case no competition concerns would arise under any (19) Based on the above, the Commission concluded that the reasonable alternative market definitions. market for magazine papers does not include newsprint and WFC papers, but may comprise all of the CMR (and including MFC) and SC grades (including SC-B Equival­ (26) The Commission also concluded that it is not necessary in ent) ( 1 ). In any event, given that no competition the present case to define the scope of the product and concerns arise from the concentration to which this geographic market in respect to the generation and Decision relates, when considering either a wider wholesale supply of electricity as the concentration does magazine paper market comprising CMR and SC, or not give rise to competition concerns. even the a narrow SC market alone, the exact market definition can be left open. B. Competitive assessment (20) In the light of the evidence as regards the appreciable trade flows within the EEA and Switzerland, the absence of 1. Magazine paper significant barriers to intra-EEA trade, the fact that transport is both possible and actually undertaken over (27) Market shares in the paper industry are typically based on 4 long distances, and that sales prices are uniform across capacity data, for which independent sources ( ) exist. In this space, the Commission considered that the relevant line with this practice, UPM submitted capacity based geographic market is the EEA plus Switzerland. market shares for an overall magazine paper market and for the SC market segment which were generally confirmed during the market investigation. 2. Newsprint

(21) Both UPM and Myllykoski Group are active in the market for newsprint. Newsprint is a type of paper used mainly (28) For the an overall magazine paper market comprising SC, for the printing of newspapers. It is distinguished by its MFC and CMR the following are capacity based market relatively low cost and high strength, which allows it to be shares: run through large printing presses at high speed and in large volumes. Newsprint comes in various grades and specifications. The two primary segments of the Company Share of capacity newsprint market are standard newsprint and improved newsprint ( 2 ). UPM 20-30 %

1 (22) UPM submitted that, in accordance with Commission Myllykoski Group ( ) 10-20 % precedents ( 3 ), there is a market for newsprint taken as a whole. It is considered that there is a high degree of Combined 40-50 % demand-side substitutability of different grades of news­ print. In particular, there is common usage of different Stora Enso 10-20 % grades in multiple applications and consumers can and do switch between different grades. In addition, UPM Norske Skog 5-10 % submitted that improved newsprint can be used for magazine applications; in particular it could replace SC SAPPI 5-10 % paper. Burgo 5-10 % (23) Given that competition concerns would not arise on any reasonable alternative market definition, the Commision SCA Forest 5-10 % left open the exact product market definition in relation to newsprint market. Leipa 0-5 %

(24) The Commission concluded that the relevant geographic Others 5-10 % market for newsprint is the EEA and Switzerland. Total 100 %

( 1 ) Further in this document the expression ‘magazine paper market’ is 1 supposed to include SC, MFC and CMR. ( ) Myllykoski Group's capacity was downwards corrected in the amount ( 2 ) MFS (synonym for improved newsprint), including UMI (uncoated of 93 kt by UPM (Response to the Statement of Objections (see pages 9 mechanical improved) and UMO (uncoated mechanical-other). and 63). ( 3 ) See Case COMP/M.646 Repola/Kymmene, 30 October 1995, para. 12; Case COMP/M.2498 UPM-Kymmene/Haindl, 21 November 2001, para. 13; Case COMP/M.3822 Stora Enso/Schneidersöhne Papier, ( 4 ) Jaakko Pöyry Databank, RISI; CEPI Print is an association of 25 July 2005, para. 16. publication paper producers. 13.4.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/9

(29) These market shares do not yet include the SC-B separate market for super-improved newsprint or SC-B Equivalent papers, as these are recent introductions to Equivalent as neither UPM nor Myllykoski produce this the market. Including those products in the above type of paper. capacity figures would lead to a combined market share of the parties of some 30-40 %. (39) In terms of shares of sales the parties would have had combined market shares in 2010 of 20-30 % and 20- (30) Competition from the recently introduced SC-B Equivalent 30 % for standard and improved newsprint respectively ( 1 ). papers has already had a significant constraining effect on On a market for improved newsprint excluding all the the SC products where the parties have a relatively strong capacity used for the production of SC-B Equivalent position. These new products compete directly with SC papers the Commission estimated that the parties' papers, their sales are growing rapidly and it is expected combined market share would have been 20-30 %. that the pressure coming from the SC-B Equivalent paper producers will increase in the near future. (40) UPM claimed that the proposed concentration would not (31) Considering the SC paper segment (including the SC-B create competition concerns as a result of that horizontal Equivalent the combined market shares would amount overlap because: (i) there are strong players on the market to 40-50 % of total capacity, with a number of capable of competing with the merged entity; (ii) smaller competitors remaining: Stora Enso (20-30 %), Norske players can successfully compete for contracts given the Skog (10-20 %), Holmen (10-20 %) and SCA (5-10 %). multi-sourcing practices in the market and (iii) imported paper plays an important role in satisfying EEA demand in (32) The ability of competitors to expand production in newsprint. reaction to a possible capacity reduction resulting from the transaction is determined to a great extent by their (41) After the proposed concentration the combined entity will spare capacity and on the evolution of the demand. continue to face competition from Stora Enso which will remain the largest player overall (based on capacity) and (33) Based on the demand trends forecasts, the Commission for improved newsprint. In addition there are four other considers that demand in the EEA for magazine paper important players, Norske Skog, SCA, Holmen and Palm. (including SC) will be stable or even decreasing in the next three to five years. (42) Concerning the risk of potential coordination, the Commission noted that is is unlikely that the concen­ (34) At the same time, the analysis of competitors' spare tration would increase the incentives to collude, capacities on an average annual basis showed that particularly as there would be no reduction in the competitors hold significant spare capacity in the market. number of significant players. Myllykoski is only the Indeed, the yearly average utilisation rate of the sixth largest player and is less than one fifth the size of competitors in the overall market for magazine paper as the current market leader Stora Enso. well as for the narrower SC paper segment was around 88 % in 2010. 3. Other markets (35) Competitors have a strong interest in filling their capacities as paper making involves very high fixed costs. For this (43) The Commission concluded that the proposed concen­ reason, producers seek to fill their capacities and therefore tration would not give rise to a significant impediment will have the incentives to increase capacity utilisation to effective competition in relation to: (i) the market for rates and sales in response to price increases or capacity newsprint and its potential narrower segments; (ii) the reductions by UPM. market for the acquisition of recovered paper and its potential narrower segments; (iii) the market for wood procurement and its narrower segments and (iv) the (36) In conclusion, the competitors have both the ability as market for wood pulp and its narrower segments. well as the incentive to counteract any price increases or any likely capacity reductions contemplated by UPM following the merger. (44) In addition, the Commission concluded that the proposed concentration would not give rise to a significant (37) In view of the considerations that have been set out above impediment to effective competition as concerns the and elaborated in detail in the proposed decision, the following vertical relationships: (i) the vertical relationship Commission considers that the proposed concentration between wood procurement and pulp; (ii) the vertical rela­ will not lead to a significant impediment of effective tionship between pulp and magazine paper under any competition in the magazine paper market or in any of alternative market definition; (iii) the vertical relationship the segments thereof. between the generation and wholesale supply of electricity and magazine paper under any alternative market defi­ 2. Newsprint nition; (iv) the vertical relationship between wood procurement and wood panel products; (v) the vertical (38) The parties' share of newsprint capacity would not exceed relationship between wood procurement and sawn 20-30 %, irrespective of whether the market is considered timber; and (vi) the vertical relationship between the to be a single market for all newsprint or on separate acquisition of recovered paper and pulp. markets for standard and improved newsprint. The proposed concentration would have no effect on a ( 1 ) Based on parties own sales and CEPIPRINT overall sales. C 107/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.4.2012

VI. CONCLUSION

(45) For the reasons mentioned above, the decision concludes that the proposed concentration will not significantly impede effective competition in the Internal Market or in a substantial part thereof.

(46) Consequently the notified operation whereby UPM-Kymmene Corporation acquires sole control of Myllykoski Corporation and Rhein Papier GmbH within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 is hereby declared compatible with the Internal Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 2(2) and Article 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. 13.4.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/11

V

(Announcements)

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) (2012/C 107/05)

1. On 2 April 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ( 1 ) by which the undertaking Rio Tinto plc (‘Rio Tinto’, United Kingdom) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Richards Bay Mining (Proprietary) Limited and Richards Bay Titanium (Proprietary) Limited (collec­ tively referred to as ‘Richards Bay Minerals’, South Africa) by way of purchase of shares. 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — for Rio Tinto: international mining group with activities in aluminium, copper, diamonds and minerals, iron ore, energy and the separation, beneficiation and smelting of rock ilmenite and mineral sands, — for Richards Bay Minerals: mining, separation, beneficiation and smelting of mineral sands. 3. On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation ( 2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. 4. The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission. Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER- [email protected] or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6527 — Rio Tinto/Richards Bay Minerals, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

( 1 ) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’). ( 2 ) OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’). C 107/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.4.2012

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) (2012/C 107/06)

1. On 30 March 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ( 1 ) by which Sberbank of Russia OAO (‘Sberbank’, Russia) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control over BNP Paribas Vostok together with BNP Paribas SA by way of purchase of shares. 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — for Sberbank: banking, — for BNP Paribas Group: banking and investment solutions, — for BNPP Vostok: deposits, retail loans and wholesale financing. 3. On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation ( 2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. 4. The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission. Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER- [email protected] or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6524 — Sberbank of Russia/BNP Paribas Personal Finance/BNP Paribas Vostok, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

( 1 ) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’). ( 2 ) OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’). 13.4.2012 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/13

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark) (Text with EEA relevance) (2012/C 107/07)

1. On 29 March 2012, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ( 1) by which DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo GmbH (Germany) — controlled by DONG Energy A/S (‘DONG Energy’, Denmark) — and Boston Holding A/S (Denmark) — controlled by Kirkbi Invest A/S (Denmark), which is ultimately controlled by the Kirk Kristiansen family, and William Demant Invest A/S (Denmark), which is controlled by the Oticon Foun­ dation — acquire within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the under­ taking Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark A/S GmbH & Co. oHG (‘Borkum Riffgrund I’, Germany), by way of contribution of cash and acquisition of assets. 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: — for DONG Energy: mainly active in Northern Europe in exploration and production of natural gas and oil, power generation and sale of energy, — for Kirkbi Invest A/S: provision of play materials and experiences as well as teaching materials for children and operation of visitor attractions, — for William Demant Invest: supply of products and equipment to aid the hearing and communication of individuals and non-invasive orthopaedics, development of assisted reproductive technology solutions and investment in commercial real estate, — for Borkum Riffgrund I: will own, operate and maintain an offshore wind farm located in the North Sea. 3. On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. 4. The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission. Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER- [email protected] or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6540 — DONG Energy Borkum Riffgrund I HoldCo/Boston Holding/Borkum Riffgrund I Offshore Windpark, to the following address: European Commission Directorate-General for Competition Merger Registry J-70 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

( 1 ) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’). 0/4 fiilJunlo h uoenUin 13.4.2012 Official Journal of the European Union C 107/14 CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to the summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 December 2007 to 31 December 2007 (Official Journal of the European Union C 19 of 25 January 2008) (2012/C 107/08) EN

On page 4, third and fourth rows of the table: for:

‘12.12.2007 Olanzapine Teva Olanzapine Teva Pharma B.V. EU/1/07/427/001-022 Film-coated tablet N05AH03 14.12.2008 Computerweg 10 3542 DR Utrecht Nederland EU/1/07/427023-037 Orodispersible tablets

13.12.2007 Atripla Efavirenz/emtricitabine/ Bristol-Myers Squibb Gilead Sciences EU/1/07/430/001 Film-coated tablet J05AR06 18.12.2008’ tenofovir disoproxil And Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited fumarate Unit 13 Stillorgan Industrial Park Blackrock, Co.Dublin Ireland

read:

‘12.12.2007 Olanzapine Teva Olanzapine Teva Pharma B.V. EU/1/07/427/001-022 Film-coated tablet N05AH03 14.12.2007 Computerweg 10 3542 DR Utrecht Nederland EU/1/07/427023-037 Orodispersible tablets

13.12.2007 Atripla Efavirenz/emtricitabine/ Bristol-Myers Squibb Gilead Sciences EU/1/07/430/001 Film-coated tablet J05AR06 18.12.2007’ tenofovir disoproxil And Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited fumarate Unit 13 Stillorgan Industrial Park Blackrock, Co. Dublin Ireland

2012 SUBSCRIPTION PRICES (excluding VAT, including normal transport charges)

EU Official Journal, L + C series, paper edition only 22 official EU languages EUR 1 200 per year

EU Official Journal, L + C series, paper + annual DVD 22 official EU languages EUR 1 310 per year

EU Official Journal, L series, paper edition only 22 official EU languages EUR 840 per year

EU Official Journal, L + C series, monthly DVD (cumulative) 22 official EU languages EUR 100 per year

Supplement to the Official Journal (S series), tendering procedures multilingual: EUR 200 per year for public contracts, DVD, one edition per week 23 official EU languages

EU Official Journal, C series — recruitment competitions Language(s) according to EUR 50 per year competition(s)

Subscriptions to the Official Journal of the European Union, which is published in the official languages of the European Union, are available for 22 language versions. The Official Journal comprises two series, L (Legislation) and C (Information and Notices). A separate subscription must be taken out for each language version. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 920/2005, published in Official Journal L 156 of 18 June 2005, the institutions of the European Union are temporarily not bound by the obligation to draft all acts in Irish and publish them in that language. Irish editions of the Official Journal are therefore sold separately. Subscriptions to the Supplement to the Official Journal (S Series — tendering procedures for public contracts) cover all 23 official language versions on a single multilingual DVD. On request, subscribers to the Official Journal of the European Union can receive the various Annexes to the Official Journal. Subscribers are informed of the publication of Annexes by notices inserted in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Sales and subscriptions

Subscriptions to various priced periodicals, such as the subscription to the Official Journal of the European Union, are available from our sales agents. The list of sales agents is available at: http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm

EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) offers direct access to European Union legislation free of charge. The Official Journal of the European Union can be consulted on this website, as can the Treaties, legislation, case-law and preparatory acts. For further information on the European Union, see: http://europa.eu EN