2.3.2006 Official Journal of the European Union L 61/17 COMMISSION DECISION of 3 May 2005 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.3178 — Bertelsmann/Springer/JV) (notified under document number C(2005) 1368) (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2006/171EC) On 3 May 2005 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://europa.eu.int/comm/ competition/index_en.html On 4 November 2004, the Commission received a noti- fication under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Merger Regulation’) a proposed concen- tration by which the German undertakings Bertelsmann AG (Bertelsmann’), its solely controlled subsidiary Gruner+Jahr AG & Co. KG (‘G+J), and Axel Springer AG (‘Springer), would acquire joint control of the German undertaking NewCo (NewCo) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company consti- tuting a joint venture. Bertelsmann (and G+]) and Springer are collectively referred to as ‘the Parties’. On 29 November 2004 the German competition authority,  the  Bundeskartellamt, informed the Commission that the proposed concentration would threaten to affect significantly competition, either in the German market for rotogravure printing, or, in the alter- native in the German market for time-critical print products, in particular magazines. By decision dated 23 December 2004, the Commission found that the notified operation raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The Commission accordingly initiated proceedings in this case pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation and decided that it should, by virtue of Article 9(3)(a) of the Merger Regulation, itself deal with the aspects raised by the German competition authority. Bertelsmann is an international media company. Its printing activities are concentrated in its subsidiary Arvato AG (‘Arvato’), which controls the German roto- gravure printer maul-belser in Nuremberg, the offset printer Mohn Media in Guetersloh and various other printers in Europe, such as the rotogravure printers Euro- () O] L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1. 0 0 gravure S.p.A. in Italy and Eurohueco S.A. in Spain. In addition, Arvato plans to start up a new rotogravure printing facility in Liverpool (UK) in the next two years. Furthermore, Bertelsmann's solely controlled publishing arm G+], active in the publishing, printing and distribution of newspapers and magazines, has two rotogravure printing facilities in Germany, located in Itzehoe (near Hamburg) and Dresden. Springer is active in the publishing, printing and distri- bution of newspapers and magazines, and holds shares in television and radio broadcasters. Springer operates two rotogravure printing facilities in Germany, namely in Ahrensburg (near Hamburg) and in Darmstadt. It also operates three off-set printing facilities which print exclu- sively newspapers. The concentration consists in the contribution to NewCo of Arvato’s, G+J's and Springer’s five German rotogravure facilities and of Arvato’s planned rotogravure printing facility in the UK. Following the transaction, Bertelsmann and G+J will each hold an interest of 37,45 % in NewCo and Springer will hold the remaining 25,1 %, with veto rights relating to strategic decisions. NewCo constitutes a full-function joint venture and is jointly controlled by Bertelsmann and Springer. The Advisory Committee on Concentrations, at its 131st meeting on 22 April 2005, with majority supported the Commission’s proposal to issue a clearance decision (?). The Hearing Officer, in a report dated 27 April 2005, took the view that the right of the parties to be heard had been respected (3). J C 52, 2.3.2006, p. 2. J C 52, 2.3.2006, p. 3.