EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/6

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/37.533 — Choline chloride

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 180/06)

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

The Commission's investigation of a potential infringement of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Treaty in the chorine chloride industry was initiated following an application for leniency submitted further to the Commission's 1996 Notice on Non-imposition or reduction of Fines in Cartel Cases (‘Leniency Notice’).

A Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was sent on 23 May 2003 to fourteen parties considered on a preliminary basis to have participated in the cartel, namely:

— Akzo Nobel N.V; Akzo Nobel Nederland B.V; Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V; Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V; Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals B.V; Akzo Nobel Chemicals SpA. (‘Akzo Nobel’)

— BASF A.G. (‘BASF’)

— Bioproducts Incorporated (‘Bioproducts’)

— Chinook Group Limited; Chinook Group Inc; Chinook Group Limited Partnership. (‘Chinook’)

— DuCoa, L.P. (‘DuCoa’)

— UCB S.A. (‘UCB’)

— Ertisa S.A. (‘Ertisa’)

Access to the file was provided by CD-ROM. All parties provided written observations on the SO within the time limit provided.

All parties except for DuCoa participated in an oral hearing that took place on 16 September 2003.

During the hearing an additional document from one of the parties' replies to the SO was distributed on the basis that it contained information in support of the Commission's objections that might be relied upon in the final decision. The parties concerned were given the opportunity to comment on this document. Bioproducts and Chinook also commented following the hearing on the issue of immunity from fines.

In the course of the procedure Chinook drew the attention of the Hearing Officer to the apparent mishandling of the case by the Commission services resulting from the fact that part of its file had been mislaid, in particular documents handed over by Chinook that it claimed were relevant for the application of the Leniency Notice. In order to redress the situation, copies of the documents concerned had been obtained and placed in the file. Reference to the documents was included in the SO and the documents themselves included on the CD-ROM. Therefore, this incident, whilst unfortunate, had not affected Chinook's rights to be heard. (The original file was also eventually retrieved.)

Following the parties' replies to the SO and the oral hearing the objections set out in the SO against Ertisa have been dropped. The same applies to Akzo Nobel Chemicals SpA. In addition, the duration of the infringement has been reduced for Chinook and Bioproducts, as a result of which the imposition of fines is time barred. The time bar also applies to DuCoa.

The draft decision submitted to the Commission only contains objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights of the parties to be heard have been respected in this case.