Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

28.2.

2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53/7

38. Infine, nella sua analisi, la Commissione valuta la questione grafo 2, del trattato CE, invita l’Italia a presentare le sue
di un eventuale «top-up», ossia di un aumento dell’intensità osservazioni e a fornire le informazioni utili ai fini della
di aiuto autorizzabile, inteso quale ulteriore incentivo per valutazione dell’aiuto, entro un mese dalla data di ricevi-
l’investitore ad investire nella regione in questione. Tali mento della presente.
top-up sono autorizzati, purchØ l’investimento non aggravi
i problemi di capacità che incontra l’industria automobili-
stica. In base alla disciplina automobilistica, il mercato
rilevante per la produzione di motori da parte di un co- 40. La Commissione invita le autorità italiane a trasmettere
struttore automobilistico Ł il mercato degli autoveicoli per i senza indugio copia della presente lettera al potenziale
quali i motori sono fabbricati. Pertanto la Commissione ha beneficiario dell’aiuto.
bisogno di poter determinare la capacità di produzione
europea di veicoli commerciali leggeri nei segmenti cui
sono destinati i motori a livello del Gruppo Fiat.
41. La Commissione fa presente al governo italiano l’effetto
DECISIONE sospensivo dell’articolo 88, paragrafo 3, del trattato CE e
ribadisce che ai sensi dell’articolo 14 del regolamento (CE)
39. In base alle considerazioni di cui sopra, la Commissione, n. 659/1999, ogni aiuto illegittimo può formare oggetto di
nell’ambito del procedimento di cui all’articolo 88, para- recupero presso il beneficiario.’

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision (C(2001) 1461/3 final) of 23 May 2001 on the
terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition procedures)
(2002/C 53/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The proceedings in this case have been initiated upon a complaint under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17
by NDC, combined with a request for interim measures. The Commission proposes to grant this request,
while reserving its final decision with regard to the substance of the case.

The timing of the various measures which were taken to ensure the parties’ right to be heard corresponded
to the needs of an accelerated procedure. The Statement of Objections was sent on 9 March and received
on 12 March 2001. By decision of 19 March 2001 the Hearing Officer extended the initial two weeks’ time
limit imposed on IMS for its reponse from 26 March to 2 April 2001. The Oral Hearing took place on 6
April 2001. The replies to the Statement of Objections gave rise to a complementary inquiry, mainly on
the basis of requests for information under Article 11 of Regulation No 17, which were sent to several
German undertakings in the pharmaceutical sector. The written replies to these requests and the records of
all further meetings with third parties were communicated to IMS, after certain confidential parts
concerning the relationship between other service providers and their clients had been made illegible.
They were sent in two packages on 22 May and 7 June 2001. The time for submitting written comments
ended on 14 June 2001.

From the above it follows that IMS has been enabled to fully exercise its rights of defence. The draft
decision only deals with objections in respect of which the defendant has been afforded the opportunity of
making known its views.

Done at Brussels on 18 June 2001.


Emil PAULIS