Final report of the Hearing Officer — Automotive wire harnesses (AT.39748)
Date: 2013-07-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Economic Area, electric cable, infringement of EU law, inter-company agreement, motor vehicle industry, price agreement, vehicle parts








C_2013283EN.01000401.xml










28.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/4





Final report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Automotive wire harnesses
(AT.39748)
2013/C 283/04
On 3 August 2012, the European Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) against Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems (Europe), Ltd and Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd (‘Sumitomo’), Yazaki Europe Ltd and Yazaki Corporation (‘Yazaki’), Furukawa Automotive Systems Inc. and Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (‘Furukawa’), S-Y Systems Technologies France SAS and S-Y Systems Technologies Europe GmbH (‘S-Y’) and Leoni Wiring Systems France SAS and Leoni AG (‘Leoni’) (together ‘the parties’).
Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3), the European Commission adopted a statement of objections (‘SO’) addressed to Sumitomo, Yazaki, Furukawa, S-Y and Leoni, stating that the parties had participated in one or more of five separate infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The five infringements are described as agreements and/or concerted practices covering the territories of the European Economic Area by which the participants coordinated their pricing behaviour and allocated the supplies of wire harnesses to certain manufacturers of motor vehicles, namely Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Renault. The parties’ respective replies to the SO confirmed that the SO addressed to them reflected the contents of their settlement submissions.
Pursuant to 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, and I have come to a positive conclusion.
In view of the above, and taking into account 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 to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 5 July 2013.

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).

(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.