EN Official Journal of the European Union C 348/13

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Yen Interest Rate Derivatives (YIRD)

(AT.39861)

(2016/C 348/09)

On 12 February 2013, the European Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) against UBS AG, UBS Securities Japan Co., Ltd, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd and Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd (together ‘the settling parties’).

On 29 October 2013 the European Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against ICAP plc, ICAP Management Services Limited and ICAP New Zealand Limited (‘ICAP’) (3).

Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (4), the European Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’), on 29 October 2013, addressed to the settling parties, stating that they had participated between 2007 and 2010 in one or more of seven bilateral infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, distinct and separate from one another.

The seven bilateral infringements concern Japanese Yen Interest Rate Derivatives (‘YIRD’), referenced to the Japanese yen LIBOR and in the case of one infringement, also YIRDs referenced to the Euroyen TIBOR. The parties sought to influence the levels of the yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR through the discussion on the direction or level of one or several rates that at least one of the banks should submit to the British Bankers’ Association and/or Japanese Bankers’ Association for the calculation of the Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR in order to positively affect the banks’ trading positions for derivatives that use these rates as part of their settlement terms.

All the settling parties’ replies to the SO confirmed that the statement reflected the contents of their settlement submissions.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision addressed to the settling parties 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.

In view of the above, and taking into account that the settling parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (5), I consider that the effective exercise of their procedural rights in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 29 November 2013. Joos STRAGIER

(1) Pursuant to Article 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) The proceedings against ICAP are still ongoing.

(4) 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).

(5) 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).