EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/18

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/34.250 — Norway Post/Privpak

2011/C 285/12

The draft decision in the abovementioned case gives rise to the following observations.

Statement of objections

This case was initiated when Privpak submitted a complaint to the Authority on 24 June 2002. As the administrative proceedings until then having been conducted in English, the Authority issued, on 17 December 2008, a statement of objections (hereafter ‘SO’) in English to Norway Post. The Authority reached the preliminary conclusion that the company’s conduct regarding its exclusivity agreements with NorgesGruppen/Shell, Coop and ICA were in breach of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.

By letter of 23 December 2008, Norway Post requested to be served a Norwegian translation of the SO and requested that the future handling of the case be conducted in Norwegian. On 6 February 2009, the Authority forwarded Norway Post a Norwegian translation of the SO. Furthermore, the Authority extended the deadline to reply to the SO from 1 March 2009 to 6 April 2009.

On 6 April 2009, Norway Post submitted a reply to the SO where it rejected the findings of the Authority as set out in the SO.

Access to the file

Accompanying the Authority’s letter of 17 December 2008 transmitting the English version of the SO were two CD-ROMs which contained electronic copies of all the documents, excluding business secrets and other confidential information, on the Authority’s file on this case (internal Case COMP/34.250).

In addition to this access to the file under Article 15 of Chapter III of Protocol 4 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, Norway Post requested access to correspondence between Privpak and the Authority after the issuance of the SO. Privpak objected to the disclosure of those documents. Following correspondence with the Competition and State Aid Directorate, Privpak brought the issue of disclosure to the Hearing Officer by letter of 18 May 2009. On 4 June 2009, I decided that the documents in question were not confidential and accordingly rejected Privpak’s request. On 15 June 2009, after the expiry of Privpak’s deadline to bring the case before the EFTA Court, the documents were transmitted to Norway Post.

Neither in its reply to the SO nor at the oral hearing has Norway Post claimed that its right to be heard has not been respected by the Authority.

Oral hearing

In its reply to the SO, Norway Post requested an oral hearing. The oral hearing was held on 16 June 2009 in Brussels and was attended by representatives of Norway Post and Privpak. The hearing was conducted in Norwegian, with simultaneous interpretation into English with the exception of my brief interventions and a short statement from Privpak, which were made in English with simultaneous interpretation into Norwegian.

Draft decision

In the draft decision the Authority finds that Norway Post has committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement from 20 September 2000 until 31 March 2006 in the market for B-to-C parcel services with over-the-counter delivery in Norway by pursuing an exclusivity strategy with preferential treatment when establishing and maintaining its Post-in-Shop network. This is in line with the Authority’s preliminary findings on abuse as set out in the SO, with the exception that in the SO it was considered that the infringement started earlier, i.e. on 30 May 2000.

In my opinion, the draft decision relates only to objections in respect of which Norway Post has been afforded the opportunity to make known its views.

Conclusion

In light of the above I consider that Norway Post’s right to be heard has been respected in this case.