EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/8

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Rechargeable Batteries

(AT.39904)

(2017/C 117/09)

On 4 March 2015, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) in respect of four undertakings: Samsung SDI, Sony, Panasonic and Sanyo (the ‘undertakings concerned’).

Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, the Commission notified a statement of objections on 28 September 2016 to the following legal entities (the ‘parties’) grouped here by respective undertaking concerned:

— Samsung SDI Co., Ltd,

— Sony Corporation, Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc. and Sony Taiwan Limited,

— Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Automotive & Industrial Systems Europe GmbH, and

— Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd, Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Taiwan Co., Ltd and Panasonic Automotive & Industrial Systems Europe GmbH.

According to that statement of objections, the undertakings concerned participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in the European Economic Area (EEA) from 2004 to 2007.

The Commission’s draft decision finds that the undertakings concerned infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a single and continuous infringement covering the whole EEA consisting of price coordination and/or exchanges of commercially-sensitive market information concerning rechargeable lithium-ion batteries.

The parties confirmed pursuant to Article 10a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 that the statement of objections reflected the contents of their settlement submissions.

In accordance with 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. I conclude that it does.

In view of the above, and bearing in mind that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (4), I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants in the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 5 December 2016. 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).

(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) as amended in particular by Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2008 of 30 June 2008 (OJ L 171, 1.7.2008, p. 3).

(4) 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).