# C_2014314EN.01000601.xml

| 13.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/6

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

1

OPCOM/Romanian Power Exchange

(AT.39984)

2014/C 314/06

| (1) | On 6 December 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against SC OPCOM SA (‘OPCOM’) and its parent company C.N.T.E.E. Transelectrica S.A. (‘Transelectrica’) for alleged abuse of dominance on the market for services facilitating electricity trading in Romania. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 6 December 2012, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against SC OPCOM SA (‘OPCOM’) and its parent company C.N.T.E.E. Transelectrica S.A. (‘Transelectrica’) for alleged abuse of dominance on the market for services facilitating electricity trading in Romania.

2

3

| (2) | The Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was adopted on 29 May 2013. According to the SO, OPCOM’s requirement that foreign traders obtain a Romanian VAT registration inhibits competition on the Romanian electricity market. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was adopted on 29 May 2013. According to the SO, OPCOM’s requirement that foreign traders obtain a Romanian VAT registration inhibits competition on the Romanian electricity market.

| (3) | On 7 June 2013, OPCOM and Transelectrica received access to the file and subsequently submitted their replies to the SO on 5 and 7 August 2013 respectively, following a two-week extension to the original period of 6 weeks set by DG Competition to reply to the SO. In their written response to the SO, both OPCOM and Transelectrica requested an oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 7 June 2013, OPCOM and Transelectrica received access to the file and subsequently submitted their replies to the SO on 5 and 7 August 2013 respectively, following a two-week extension to the original period of 6 weeks set by DG Competition to reply to the SO. In their written response to the SO, both OPCOM and Transelectrica requested an oral hearing.

| (4) | The oral hearing took place on 19 September 2013. Both OPCOM and Transelectrica attended. The European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET), invited by the Commission to express its views at the oral hearing, pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 12(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, also attended. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The oral hearing took place on 19 September 2013. Both OPCOM and Transelectrica attended. The European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET), invited by the Commission to express its views at the oral hearing, pursuant to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and Article 12(1) of Decision 2011/695/EU, also attended.

| (5) | On 28 November 2013 DG Competition sent to OPCOM and Transelectrica a Letter of Facts. Following an extension of the original deadline of 9 December 2013 to reply to the Letter of Facts, Transelectrica submitted its reply on 13 December 2013 and OPCOM on 6 January 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 28 November 2013 DG Competition sent to OPCOM and Transelectrica a Letter of Facts. Following an extension of the original deadline of 9 December 2013 to reply to the Letter of Facts, Transelectrica submitted its reply on 13 December 2013 and OPCOM on 6 January 2014.

| (6) | Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

| (7) | In conclusion, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all parties in this case has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

In conclusion, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all parties in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 26 February 2014.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (Decision 2011/695/EU).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

3

---