Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/38.170 — Reims II (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)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, competition law, inter-company agreement, postal service, report

C 48/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2004

subsequently informed in addition that the documents set out
the preliminary view of the Commission, and the banks had to
be regarded as innocent prior to any final decision of the
Commission. On 15 February 2002, the FPÖ requested full
access to the file and an oral hearing. Access to the file was
rejected since there was no legal basis for such access.
In
addition, the Hearing Officer rejected the request for an oral
hearing since this would result
in a further delay to the
procedure and was not likely to bring any significant added
value to the case. The Hearing Officer also noted with regret
that the FPÖ had made the statements of objections available
to the public. Such behaviour had no connection with the

rights of the FPÖ as complainant in the Commission's cartel
procedure in the present case.

In the light of the above, I conclude that the rights to be heard
have been respected in this case. The draft decision deals only
with objections in relation to which the parties have been
afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

Done at Brussels, 27 May 2002.

Karen WILLIAMS

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/38.170 — Reims II

(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))

(2004/C 48/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 June 2001 seventeen Public Postal Operators (‘PPOs’) re-notified to the Commission an amended
version of the Reims II Agreement. The re-notification included a request for a renewal of the exemption,
granted by the Commission by Decision of 15 September 1999 until 31 December 2001.

inviting comments from
On 11 July 2001 the Commission published a summary of the agreement,
interested parties. Thereafter the Commission launched an investigation of
the amended agreement.
Meetings were held with the majority of the parties concerned at both bilateral and multilateral level,
as well as with a number of interested third parties. Following discussions with the Commission services
the parties further modified the Agreement on 24 January 2003 in order to meet the competition concerns
identified by the Commission's inquiry.

On 23 April 2003 the Commission published a notice pursuant to Article 19(3) of Regulation 17/62
setting out the main elements of the agreement and indicating that the Commission proposed to take a
positive view subject to certain requirements relating to third party access to Reims II terminal dues. These
requirements had been discussed with the parties. Third parties were invited by the Commission to provide
their comments.

Comments were received from a number of third parties. These comments were transmitted to the parties.
Following assessment by the Commission services, a further requirement was added in order to enable an
exemption to be made available. This was discussed with the parties concerned. The parties were also
informed that these requirements would be included as a condition for granting the exemption.

The draft decision grants an exemption pursuant to Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty subject to compliance
with conditions. The duration of the exemption has been clearly specified.

The rights to be heard in the present case have been respected.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2003.

Karen WILLIAMS