Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Occupant Safety Systems supplied to Japanese Car Manufacturers (Case AT.39881)
Date: 2017-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, Japan, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, motor vehicle industry, price agreement, safety device, sanction (EU), trade information, transport safety








C_2018135EN.01000401.xml










17.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/4





Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Occupant Safety Systems supplied to Japanese Car Manufacturers
(Case AT.39881)
(2018/C 135/04)
On 4 April 2016, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3) against Tokai Rika (4), Takata (5), Autoliv (6), Toyoda Gosei (7) and Marutaka (8) (collectively ‘the parties’).
Following settlement discussions (9) and settlement submissions (10) in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, the Commission notified a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) on 26 September 2017. According to the SO, the parties participated in one or more of four single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in respect of their supplies of certain occupant safety systems (OSS) products for passenger cars to Japanese car manufacturers.
In their respective replies to the SO the parties confirmed pursuant to Article 10a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 that the SO reflected the contents of their settlement submissions.
The Commission's draft decision finds that the parties infringed Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in one or more of four single and continuous infringements consisting of price coordination and market sharing in respect of supplies of certain types of OSS products (namely seatbelts, airbags and/or steering wheels) for passenger cars between July 2004 and July 2010 to a number of Japanese car manufacturers active in the EEA.
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. I conclude that it does so.
In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (11), I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of the parties to the proceedings in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 21 November 2017.

Joos STRAGIER




(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)  Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.

(5)  Takata Corporation.

(6)  Autoliv Inc. and Autoliv Japan Ltd.

(7)  Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

(8)  Marutaka Co., Ltd.

(9)  The settlement meetings took place between July 2016 and May 2017.

(10)  The parties' requests to settle were submitted […].

(11)  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).