Article 2
This Decision is addressed to: AB VOLVO 40508 Göteborg Sweden. Done at Brussels, 14 March 2000. For the Commission Mario Monti Member of the Commission (1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1; corrected version: OJ L 257, 21.9.1990, p. 13. (2) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 1. (3) OJ C 154, 29.5.2001. (4) OJ L 61, 2.3.1998, p. 1. (5) See Case No IV/M.004 - Renault/Volvo, Decision of 7 November 1990. (6) See Case No IV/M.1202 - Renault/Iveco, Decision of 22 October 1998. (7) The relevance of this finding for the affected bus markets will be discussed in the section concerning buses and coaches. (8) Parts of this text have been edited to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed; those parts are enclosed in square brackets. (9) In the studies, Greece was omitted owing to the low number of vehicles sold, Luxembourg is included in Belgium and Ireland is included in the United Kingdom. (10) It should also be recalled that the reports, for the purposes of narrowing the difference between the adjusted prices, had to exclude Sweden, France and Norway for tractors, and Sweden and Denmark from rigids. (11) The information provided by Volvo indicates the margins for the three most popular models in a number of countries. However, as the most popular model varies between countries and since Volvo has not provided this data for all countries, no complete comparison can be made. (12) It should be recalled that even the Lexecon and Neven reports, which went into considerable efforts to adjust the existing price data, despite omitting a number of countries where larger price differences were found, concluded that prices vary by 12 %. (13) In its reply, Volvo refers to the existence of trade in secondhand heavy trucks as evidence that national markets are interrelated. In this context it should be noted, first that the buyer of a secondhand vehicle is typically not buying a package of a truck, a maintenance contract and possibly financing, as is the case for new trucks. Secondly, in its notification Volvo did not indicate that secondhand trucks were on the same market as new trucks (indeed, it provided no information about the sales of secondhand vehicles). Thirdly, Volvo has not provided information to show that parallel trade of new trucks is at the same level as trade in secondhand vehicles. (14) [Figure is highest in Sweden, followed by Finland, Denmark and Norway, in that order]. (15) Volvo's market share figures are based on registration volumes for all heavy trucks. The data submitted largely correspond to the sales figures collected by the Commission in the course of the investigation (including those broken down between rigid and tractor heavy trucks). (16) It has been brought to the Commission's attention that the costs of extending the capability of a light/medium truck network to cover also heavy trucks are 50 % of the costs of an entirely new heavy truck network (see, for example, recital 141). (17) As explained above, the Commission does not consider it meaningful to provide statistics based on an unrepresentative sample. However, it is worth noting that, although the number of respondents expressing concerns varies from country to country, in all of them some made one or more of the comments indicated in recital 88. (18) Volvo supplied this information relating to its sales in France, stating that it was not able to provide such a breakdown for other countries. (19) See Case No IV/M.477 - Mercedes-Benz/Kässbohrer, Decision of 14 February 1995 (OJ L 211, 6.9.1995, p. 1). (20) As Scania and Volvo have, respectively 106 and 103 service points in Sweden, these figures appear plausible for a company that would want to put itself in a position to be equally attractive to Swedish truck operators as Volvo and Scania (before the proposed concentration). However, the indicated number of dealerships is significantly lower than those of Volvo and Scania (each about 30). (21) Source: "Kuorma-autoliikenne Suomessa 1999", by Suomen Kuorma-autoliitto p. 16, ("Truck-transport in Finland 1999", The Finnish Truck Association), p. 16. (22) According to Volvo [...] is the highest or second highest volume model in all of the Nordic countries and in 1998 accounted for [20 % to 30 %] of all Volvo heavy trucks sales in the Nordic region. (23) See Case No IV/M.477 - Mercedes-Benz/Kässbohrer, Decision of 14 February 1995 (OJ L 211, 6.9.1995, p. 1), and Case No IV/M.1202 - Renault/Iveco, Decision of 22 October 1998. (24) See Case No IV/M.004 - Renault/Volvo, Decision of 7 November 1990, point 15; Case No IV/M.092 - Renault/Heuliez, Decision of 3 June 1991, point 5. (25) See Case No IV/M.477 - Mercedes-Benz/Kässbohrer, Decision of 14 February 1995 (OJ L 211, 6.9.1995, p. 1). (26) See Case No IV/M.1202 - Renault/Iveco, Decision of 22 October 1998. (27) Volvo in its reply refers to current discussion about further harmonisation concerning the length and width of buses and coaches used in international traffic. Volvo estimates that this further harmonisation will be in effect from 2002. Volvo has, however, not provided any evidence about the market impact of these new rules, should they be adopted according to the time schedule envisaged by Volvo. (28) In the context of the examination of a merger between Henlys Group plc and Dennis Group plc. (29) In 1998, the Office of Fair Trading concluded in the context of the examination of a merger between Henlys Group plc and Dennis Group plc that the United Kingdom constituted a relevant geographic market, separate from that of the rest of Europe, including Ireland. (30) According to the notification, the United Kingdom is the only Member State to differentiate registrations into two classes: city buses and touring coaches. (31) Volvo had submitted that DaimlerChrysler would have a market share around 30 % for city buses in Norway. This, however, has not been confirmed by the investigation. (32) In its reply, Volvo claims that this market share is not related to sales but registrations since Scania's market share is based on city buses leased by Bus Éireann from Scania Bus and Coach in the United Kingdom. However, Volvo has not proposed that the relevant market should exclude leased vehicles and has not provided figures based on sales only. (33) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreeements (OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25).