Article 4
This Decision is addressed to: Blokker Holding BV Van der Madeweg 13 The Netherlands 1099 BS Amsterdam Done at Brussels, 26 June 1997. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Menber of the Commission (1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1; corrected version, OJ L 257, 21.9.1990, p. 13. (2) OJ C 363, 25.11.1998. (3*) This version of the Decision has been edited to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed. (4) OJ L 359, 28.12.1988, p. 46. (5) Commission notice on the notion of a concentration under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, paragraph 11 (OJ C 385, 31.12.1994, p. 5). (6) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case 56/65 Société Technique Minière v. Maschinenbau Ulm [1966] ECR, p. 235. (7) These studies will be discussed below (paragraphs 24 to 25). (8) EIM/Centrum voor Retail Research, Brancheschets Speelgoeddetailhandel, 1996 and 1997. (9) Gfk Interact Consumer Panel 1996. (10) Since the proportion of these products in Blokker's turnover seems to be higher than that of its competitors, the inclusion of these products would only increase Blokker's market share among the specialised toy retailers. (11) Commission Decision 97/277/EC in Case IV/M.784 - Kesko-Tuko (OJ L 110, 26.4.1997, p. 53, paragraph 21). (12) Otto Simon BV was formerly operating under the name Toypartners BV. (13) Techno Hobby does not carry a broad assortment as defined above. The question whether it should be part of the relevant market can be left open since it would make a substantive difference to the assessment. For the purpose of this case, it is incorporated in the market share of Otto Simon. (14) For the purpose of calculating market shares, other products such as books, sports articles, watches and children's videotapes are not taken into account. Since not all Blokker's competitors sell CD-ROMs in their toy department (department stores), CD-ROMs are not taken into account in calculating Blokker's market share. For these reasons, the Commission has based the calculation of Blokker's market share on a turnover figure of which 20 % has been deducted as indicated by Blokker. (15) Commission Decision 97/277/EC in Case IV/M.784- Kesko/Tuko (OJ L 110, 26.4.1997, p. 53, paragraph 106). (16) Commission Decision 94/449/EC in Case IV/M.308 - Kali & Salz Mdk Treuhand (OJ L 186, 21.7.1994, p. 38, paragraph 71); Commission Decision 97/610/EC in Case IV/M.774 Saint-Gobain/Wacker-Chemie/NOM (OJ L 247, 10.9.1997, p. 1, paragraph 247). (17) Opinion of Advocate-General Tesauro of 6 February 1997 in Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 France v. Commission [1998] ECR I, p. 1375, paragraph 49 et seq.