Article 2
This Decision is addressed to: VEBA Aktiengesellschaft Benningsenplatz 1 D - 40474 Düsseldorf, VIAG Aktiengesellschaft Briennerstraße 40 D - 80333 München. Done at Brussels, 13 June 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, 9.7.1990, p. 1. (3) OJ C 192, 10.7.2001. (4) Turnover was calculated on the basis of Article 5(1) of the Merger Regulation and the Commission notice on calculation of turnover (OJ C 66, 2.3.1998, p. 25). Turnovers generated before 1 January 1999 were calculated using the average ecu exchange rate and converted into euro on a one-to-one basis. (5) Case IV/M.1346 - EdF/London Electricity; Case IV/M.1606 - EdF/South Western Electricity. (6) Case IV/M.1557 - EdF/Louis Dreyfus. (7) For example Case COMP/M.1720 - Fortum/Elektrizitätswerk Wesertal. (8) The customer group comprises those customers who were described as "tariff customers" prior to liberalisation, since they were supplied in accordance with the general tariffs (BTOElt) and the general supply conditions (AVBEltV). (9) European Transmission System Operators are represented by the Union for the Coordination of Production and Transmission of Electricity (UCPTE). (10) ETSO study: Proposal for the implementation of the cross-border tariffs for the year 2001, 27 March 2000. (11) International exchanges of electricity, rules proposal by the European Transmission System Operators. (12) For example Case IV/M.1720 - Fortum/Elektrizitätswerk Wesertal. (13) BGBl. 1998 I No 23, 730. (14) Articles 7(6) and 14(3) of the Directive. (15) After a preliminary examination, the Commission has informed the associations that it has reservations about Associations Agreement II from the standpoint of Article 82 of the EC Treaty. It has reached the provisional conclusion that the T-component system leads to discrimination against individual customers of transmission services. In particular, according to the Commission, foreign suppliers of electricity are also discriminated against. (16) See point 2.2 of the consortium agreement between Bayernwerk AG, PreussenElektra AG and RWE Energie AG of 22 August 1990. (17) For example IWR-Stromtarifrechner at www.Stromtarife.de; Focus Heft 39/99, pp. 319 et seq. (18) See the website of PreussenElektra (www.preussenelektra.de) on the Central European power index. (19) IEA, Energy Policy of IEA Countries: Germany 1998 Review, www.iea.org/pubs/reviews/files/germany/02-germ.htm. (20) Case COMP/M.1842 - Vattenfall/HEW. (21) Parts of this text have been edited to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed; those parts are enclosed in square brackets. (22) This figure can be estimated on the basis of the amounts supplied by Degussa to Lonza during the period in which the latter no longer produced sodium dicyanamide. Taking into account Lonza's own consumption, its volume of trade would be less than [...] tpa. (23) Commission notice on the definition of relevant markets for the purposes of Community competition law (97/C 371/03). (24) Case COMP/M.1383 - Exxon/Mobil. (25) Case COMP/M.1383 - Exxon/Mobil. (26) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 1. (27) Case COMP/M.1383 - Exxon/Mobil. (28) Source: BEB business report 1998; BGW statistics. (29) Decision of 21 December 1994, Case IV/M.484 - Krupp/Thyssen/Riva/Falck/Tadfin/AST; decision of 20 August 1996, Case IV/M.760 - Klöckner/ARUS; decision of 4 February 1999, Case IV/M.1329 - Usinor/Cockerill Sambre; decision of 7 April 1999, Case IV/M.1369 - Thyssen Handel/Mannesmann Handel. (30) Decision of 4 February 1999, Case IV/ECSC.1268 - Usinor/Cockerill Sambre; decision of 7 April 1999, Case IV/ECSC.1292 - Thyssen Handel/Mannesmann Handel. (31) Decision of 7 April 1999, Case IV/M.1369 - Thyssen Handel/Mannesmann Handel. (32) Decision of 4 February 1999, Case IV/M.1329 - Usinor/Cockerill Sambre; Case IV/M.1369 - Thyssen Handel/Mannesmann Handel.