EN Official Journal of the European Union C 143/3

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Braking Systems

(AT.39920)

(2018/C 143/03)

On 22 September 2016, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against three undertakings: TRW (4), Bosch (5) and Continental (6) (collectively ‘the parties’).

Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) on 4 December 2017 and notified it to the parties on 5 December 2017. According to the SO, the parties participated in one or both of two single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) Agreement in respect of their sales of hydraulic braking system components and electronic braking systems for passenger cars to a number of car manufacturers in the EEA.

In their respective replies to the SO the parties confirmed pursuant to Article 10a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 that the SO reflected the contents of their settlement submissions.

The Commission’s draft decision finds that the parties infringed Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in one or both of two single and continuous infringements consisting in the exchange of sensitive business information with a view to reducing competitive uncertainty for sales of hydraulic braking system components and electronic braking systems for passenger cars to a number of car manufacturers in the EEA. The draft decision finds that the first infringement concerning the sale of hydraulic braking system components started on 13 February 2007 and lasted until 18 March 2011 whereas the second infringement concerning the sale of electronic braking systems lasted from 29 September 2010 until 7 July 2011.

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 its views. I conclude that it does so.

In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (7), I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the parties to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 20 February 2018. Joos STRAGIER

(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).

(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).

(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).

(4) ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., TRW KFZ Ausrüstung GmbH and Lucas Automotive GmbH (together ‘TRW’).

(5) Robert Bosch GmbH (‘Bosch’).

(6) Continental AG, Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG and Continental Automotive GmbH (together ‘Continental’).

(7) Under Article 15(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU, parties to the proceedings in cartel cases which engage in settlement discussions pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, may call upon the hearing officer at any stage during the settlement procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights. See also paragraph 18 of Commission Notice 2008/C 167/01 on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ C 167, 2.7.2008, p. 1).