Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Mushrooms (AT.39965)
Date: 2014-06-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cartel, confidentiality, exchange of information, fine, infringement of EU law, market-sharing agreement, preserved product, price agreement, rights of the defence, trade information








C_2014453EN.01002001.xml










17.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 453/20





Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Mushrooms
(AT.39965)
(2014/C 453/10)
On 9 April 2013, the European Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) against Bonduelle SCA, Bonduelle SAS, Bonduelle Conserve International SAS (‘Bonduelle’), Lutèce B.V., Lutèce Holding B.V., C4C Holding B.V. (‘Lutèce’), Prochamp B.V., Peffer Holding B.V. (‘Prochamp’) and [another undertaking].
Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3), on 15 May 2014 the European Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) addressed to Bonduelle, Lutèce and Prochamp (the ‘Settling Parties’), stating that they had participated in one single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
The infringement described in the SO addressed to the Settling Parties concerned an EEA-wide cartel in the private label sales (MDD, HD and MPP) (4) of canned mushrooms via tender procedures to retailers and the food service channel. It was aimed at stabilising the market shares for the cartelized product and stopping the decline of prices. The cartel lasted from 1 September 2010 until 22 December 2011 for Lutèce and until 28 February 2012 for Bonduelle and Prochamp.
The Settling 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 Settling 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 Settling Parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (5), I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all the Settling Parties in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 23 June 2014.

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 (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’) (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)  MDD stands for ‘Marque des Distributeurs’, HD stands for ‘Hard Discounts’ and MPP stands for ‘Marque Premier Prix’.

(5)  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).