Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3216 — Oracle/PeopleSoft (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)
Date: 2004-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to information, application of EU law, audit, competition law, computer systems, economic concentration, infringement procedure (EU), self-employed person, software

C 206/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.8.2005

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3216 — Oracle/PeopleSoft

(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 206/07)

On 14 October 2003, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/69, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 (‘Merger
Regulation’), by which the undertaking Oracle Corporation United States (‘Oracle’) acquires within the
meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the undertaking PeopleSoft Inc. United
States (‘PeopleSoft’) by way of a public bid.

On 17 November 2003 the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in this case pursuant to Article
6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

On 6 January 2004 the procedure was suspended when Oracle failed to supply information requested by a
formal Commission decision within the time limit specified therein. Upon receipt of the information the
procedure was resumed 12 February 2004.

In the course of the Commission's in-depth investigation, Oracle requested a number of documents on the
basis of the Commission's Best Practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings. Oracle did not
receive all the documents it had requested. However, considerable efforts were made to ensure that key
documents were made available including, in particular, non-confidential submissions provided by People-
Soft.

A Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was sent to Oracle on 12 March 2004. Upon request, an extension of the
time limit to reply was granted until 29 March 2004.

Access to the file was made available to Oracle by way of CD-Rom on 12 March 2004.

Confidential data on Bids and Deals was deleted from the responses submitted by competitors but instead
was made available to Oracle in a non-confidential format on a spreadsheet. Bid data obtained from custo-
mers was provided in the form of a Word document analysing the customer replies, together with a
spreadsheet with data compiled from replies, expressed in a non-confidential manner.

A data room was set up to enable Oracle's economists to verify PeopleSoft bidding information that had
been used for the regression analysis submitted to the Commission. This was made possible due to a confi-
dentiality agreement signed by Oracle's economists in agreement with PeopleSoft. In addition, on 22
March 2004, Oracle's economists were given access to more precise figures on bid data in replies from
competitors and customers. Names of competitors and customers, however, were not disclosed.

Oracle's view was that these measures were not sufficient to provide them with the appropriate degree of
access. In particular, Oracle wanted to verify the accuracy of figures provided in the spread-sheets and also
via their economists, to analyse information provided by PeopleSoft and other market participants that in
Oracle's view would be useful to their defence. Specifically in this respect, Oracle requested access to the
names of the competitors and customers providing replies.

My own view at the time was that sufficient access had been granted to Oracle in order to enable them to
exercise their rights of defence at that stage of the procedure.

When further access was not made available, Oracle's views on this subject were set out in detail in their
reply to the SO. This would have required a substantiated response.

23.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/7

In the event however, the fact that the Commission's objections against the proposed concentration are
now dropped means that the issue of access to file is rendered obsolete. It is also noted that, subsequent to
the reply to the SO and the oral hearing, the factual basis of the Commission's investigation and competi-
tive assessment, was broadened by additional information provided by Oracle in response to the Commis-
sion's request for information and also by information rendered available during the US trial.

As regards PeopleSoft, as an involved party, they were provided with a non-confidential version of the SO
in accordance with Article 13(3) second paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 447/98 (Implementing Regu-
lation). Certain additional documents submitted by Oracle in the course of the procedure were also
disclosed as soon as non-confidential versions were made available. Upon request, PeopleSoft also received
a non-confidential version of Oracle's reply to the SO, albeit only on 3 May 2004.

The Oral Hearing took place on 30 March and 1 April 2004. Apart from Oracle and PeopleSoft, SAP, ING
Europe and SSA Global were admitted to participate as interested third parties. These third parties were
supplied by the case-team with a non-confidential version of the SO.

On 13 April 2004 the Commission suspended the procedure in the case for a second time further to the
failure of Oracle to respect the time limit to supply information requested in a formal Commission deci-
sion. This request had been made in order to enlarge the scope of the factual information upon which the
Commission's competition assessment could be made. Upon request, PeopleSoft was supplied with a copy
of the Commission decision sent to Oracle. The procedure was resumed on 7 October upon receipt of the
information required by the Commission.

On the basis of a further analysis based on all evidence acquired, DG Competition has concluded that the
objections set out in the SO cannot be maintained.

In the light of the above, I consider that the rights to be heard of all participants to the present proceeding
have been respected.

Brussels, 19 October 2004.

Karen WILLIAMS