Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/B-1/37.966 — Distrigaz (Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 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: 2007-09-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: audit, commercial contract, dominant position, gas supply, report, restriction on competition

C 9/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/B-1/37.966 — Distrigaz

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 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)

(2008/C 9/04)

The draft decision gives rise to the following observations.

Background of the case

The present case results from an ex officio investigation that focussed initially on three gas supply contracts
concluded between Distrigaz SA/Distrigas NV (‘Distrigas’) and an industrial customer in Belgium. The
Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that certain aspects of these contracts constituted restric-
tions of competition and abuses of dominant position on the gas supply market in Belgium contrary to Arti-
cles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.

I. Preliminary assessments

A Statement of Objections (‘SO’) was notified to Distrigas and an industrial customer on 1 March 2004.
Upon request, I granted an extension to Distrigas to reply to the SO until 19 May 2004. Both Distrigas and
the industrial customer submitted written responses to the SO.

An oral hearing took place on 16 June 2004, at which Distrigas and the industrial customer presented their
views on the Commission's concerns.

On 30 June 2005, the Commission adopted a Preliminary Assessment (‘PA’) addressed to Distrigas dealing
with competition concerns under Article 82 EC in relation to Distrigas' gas supply contracts with a variety
of industrial customers in Belgium.

The Commission subsequently adopted a Supplementary Statement of Objections (‘SSO’) on 8 May 2006
addressed to Distrigas dealing with competition concerns under Article 82 EC in relation to all Distrigas' gas
supply contracts with industrial customers in Belgium. In response to specific requests, extensions to reply
were granted initially until 30 June, then 7 July and subsequently until 1 September 2006. In the event,
given the progress with the discussions on commitments (see below), it was considered that there was no
need for Distrigas to reply to the SSO.

The SO, Preliminary Assessment and SSO are all preliminary assessments within the meaning of Article 9(1)
of Council Regulation EC No 1/2003.

II. Submission of commitments and market test

On 11 July 2006, Distrigas submitted a proposal for commitments to the Commission responding to the
competition concerns raised in the preliminary assessments. Following discussions with the relevant
Commission services, a revised proposal for commitments was submitted on 1 March 2007.

On 5 April 2007, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal pursuant to Article 27(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 summarizing the case and the commitments proposed by Distrigas and invited
interested third parties to give their observations within one month. Following discussions with the relevant
Commission services that took place once the observations from third parties had been assessed, Distrigas
submitted a further amended version of the commitments on 12 June 2007. Distrigas confirmed that these
commitments should be construed as commitments within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 1/2003.

III. Access to File and to the market test

Access to file was granted initially to Distrigas and the industrial customer following the issue of the first
SO, and subsequently to Distrigas following the SSO. Following the market test Distrigas was also provided
with non-confidential versions of the responses received in response to the market test.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/7

Conclusion

I consider that the rights of the Parties to be heard have been respected in the present case.

Brussels, 25 September 2007.

Karen WILLIAMS