Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Swiss Franc Interest Rate Derivatives (Bid Ask Spread Infringement) (AT.39924)
Date: 2014-10-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Switzerland, exchange of information, exchange rate, fine, foreign currency, interest, private bank, restriction on competition, trade information








C_2015072EN.01001301.xml










28.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/13





Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Swiss Franc Interest Rate Derivatives
(Bid Ask Spread Infringement)
(AT.39924)
(2015/C 72/09)
On 24 July 2013, the European Commission (‘Commission’) initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) against The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse International and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited (together ‘the Parties’).
Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3), the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’), on 23 September 2014, stating that the Parties had participated from 7 May to 25 September 2007 in an infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
The infringement relates to certain short term over the counter Swiss Franc Interest Rate Derivatives of a maturity of up to 24 months (‘ST OTC CHIRDs’). The Parties agreed to quote to third parties wider, fixed bid-ask-spreads on the relevant ST OTC CHIRDs, whilst maintaining narrower spreads for trades amongst themselves. The aim of these contacts was, firstly, to lower the Parties' own transaction costs and maintain liquidity between each other whilst seeking to impose wider spreads on third parties and thus increase their profits. Secondly, the Parties aimed at impeding the ability of other market players to compete on the same terms as them.
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 addressed to the Parties 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 their procedural rights in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 17 October 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 (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).