Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Trucks (AT.39824)
Date: 2016-07-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, inter-company agreement, large vehicle, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2017108EN.01000401.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/4





Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Trucks
(AT.39824)
(2017/C 108/04)






(1)


The present report concerns a draft cartel settlement decision to be adopted in accordance with the procedure foreseen in Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2) (the ‘Draft Decision’).










(2)


The Draft Decision is addressed to 15 legal persons (the ‘Addressees of the Draft Decision’), each belonging to one of five undertakings: MAN, Volvo, Daimler, Iveco and DAF (the ‘Settling Undertakings’) (3).










(3)


According to the Draft Decision, the Settling Undertakings participated in collusive arrangements regarding pricing and gross price increases in the European Economic Area for medium and heavy trucks, as well as the timing and the passing on of costs for the introduction of technologies for medium and heavy trucks required by revised emissions standards.










(4)


The case stems from an application for immunity from fines. Following inspections carried out in early 2011, the Commission received three leniency applications.










(5)


On 20 November 2014, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 in respect of the Settling Undertakings and one other undertaking (the ‘Sixth Undertaking’). At the time of the present report, proceedings concerning the Sixth Undertaking are ongoing under the general (non-settlement) provisions of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (4).










(6)


Also on 20 November 2014, the Commission adopted a statement of objections in Case AT.39824 (the ‘SO’). Between 20 and 24 November 2014, the SO was notified to the Addressees of the Draft Decision as well as to three entities belonging to the Sixth Undertaking (the ‘Addressees of the SO’).










(7)


All of the Addressees of the SO requested access to the Commission’s investigation file. The Directorate-General for Competition (‘DG Competition’) made the main body of the accessible file available to the Addressees of the SO in December 2014. Concerning part of the Commission’s file for which special confidentiality measures were appropriate, DG Competition organised restricted access procedures (on and off DG Competition’s premises) that allowed external lawyers to identify the documents for which they sought non-confidential versions on behalf of their respective clients. These restricted access procedures commenced in December 2014. Requests for non-confidential versions of documents identified in the restricted access procedures were submitted to DG Competition in February and March 2015. In February 2016, DG Competition provided the corresponding non-confidential versions.










(8)


Between 1 September 2015 and 3 June 2016, the Commission had settlement discussions with the Addressees of the SO that had, in July 2015, made informal approaches to the Commission expressing an interest in possibly introducing settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004.










(9)


Between 15 and 21 June 2016, the Addressees of the Draft Decision made settlement submissions to the Commission pursuant to Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. Each of these submissions contained, among other things, an acknowledgment that the Addressee of the Draft Decision concerned had been sufficiently informed of the objections the Commission raised against it and that it had been given sufficient opportunity to make its views known to the Commission.










(10)


I have not received any requests or complaints in the present case (5).










(11)


In accordance with Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the Draft Decision deals only with objections in respect of which the Addressees of the Draft Decision have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. I conclude that it does.










(12)


In view of all the above, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the Addressees of the Draft Decision has been respected.





Brussels, 18 July 2016.

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)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18) as amended, in particular by Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2008 (OJ L 171, 1.7.2008, p. 3). See also Commission Notice 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) (the ‘Settlement Notice’).

(3)  Grouped by respective Settling Undertaking, the Addressees of the Draft Decision are: (i) MAN SE, MAN Truck & Bus AG, MAN Truck & Bus Deutschland GmbH; (ii) AB Volvo (publ), Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Renault Trucks SAS; (iii) Daimler AG; (iv) Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V, CNH Industrial N.V., Iveco SpA, Iveco Magirus AG; (v) PACCAR Inc., DAF Trucks N.V., and DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH.

(4)  See section 2.2 of the Settlement Notice, especially paragraph 19.

(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 the Settlement Notice and Article 3(7) of Decision 2011/695/EU.