Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Case AT.40636 – SNBB (Alchem)
Date: 2025-07-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, European Economic Area, cartel, control of restrictive practices, pharmaceutical industry, price agreement, sanction (EU), unlawful agreement








C_202600698EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/698


3.2.2026






Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40636 – SNBB (Alchem)
(C/2026/698)


(1)   

By a first decision of 19 October 2023 (2), adopted following the cartel settlement procedure, the Commission found that six undertakings (the ‘Settling Parties’) had committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement, consisting of bilateral and multilateral contacts regarding sales prices and the allocation of quotas on the worldwide merchant market for N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (‘SNBB’), including the European Economic Area (‘EEA’).



(2)   

The present report concerns a draft second decision (the ‘Draft Decision’) concerning the same cartel investigation, to be adopted following the standard (non-settlement) procedure, and addressed to two legal entities, Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. and Alchem International (H.K.) Limited (together: ‘Alchem’), belonging to one undertaking.



(3)   

On 13 June 2024, the Commission initiated proceedings against Alchem International (H.K.) Limited, having already initiated proceedings against Alchem International Pvt. Ltd in 2021. On the same day, the Commission adopted and notified a statement of objections (‘SO’) to Alchem.



(4)   

On 23 August 2024, Alchem received access to the file through an online electronic storage platform (OneDrive), an online tool (eLeniency) as regards corporate statements and other leniency materials, and a confidentiality ring. Following a request by Alchem, additional access to non-confidential versions of certain documents was granted on 10 and 15 October 2024.



(5)   

Alchem was originally given a deadline of eight weeks to reply to the SO. This deadline was extended once by the Directorate-General for Competition. Alchem replied in writing to the SO on 4 November 2024 (the ‘Reply to the SO’). Alchem did not request to be heard orally.



(6)   

In the Reply to the SO, Alchem contested the Commission’s jurisdiction, arguing in particular that the Commission had not shown implementation of the alleged cartel conduct in the EEA.



(7)   

With a view to rebutting this criticism in the Draft Decison, the Commission sent on 16 May 2025 a letter of facts to Alchem (‘the Letter of Facts’), informing Alchem of ‘evidence that was already on the file prior to 13 June 2024, but was not accessible to Alchem nor expressly relied on in the SO’, namely the annual sales of SNBB delivered in the EEA made by the Settling Parties during their participation in the infringement (the ‘Additional Evidence’). According to the Letter of Facts and the Draft Decision, this evidence supports the finding of implementation of the alleged cartel conduct in the EEA, and hence the Commission’s jurisdiction.



(8)   

The Letter of Facts initially gave Alchem until 23 May 2025 to submit written observations. Upon Alchem’s request, this was extended until 30 May 2025. On the latter date, Alchem submitted its written observations on the Letter of Facts (the ‘Observations on the Letter of Facts’), in which it argues that the Additional Evidence rather supports Alchem’s arguments in its Reply to the SO.



(9)   

In the Observations on the Letter of Facts, Alchem points out that the Commission failed to explain in the Letter of Facts why the Additional Evidence, which was already on the file at the time of the SO, was not already made available to Alchem as part of the access to the file following the SO (see points (3), (4) and (7) above), and reserves its right to challenge any final decision for breach of its right to be heard and have effective access to the file.



(10)   

Having examined the matter, I do not consider that the fact that the Additional Evidence was only made available to Alchem in the Letter of Facts and not already in the access to the file following the SO gives rise to a violation of Alchem’s rights of the defence. Even if the disclosure of the Additional Evidence may have been belated, the fact remains that Alchem has received access to it and has been fully able to provide its observations on it, as Alchem indeed did in its Observations on the Letter of Facts.



(11)   

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the Draft Decision deals only with objections in respect of which Alchem has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does.



(12)   

In view of the above, and taking into account that Alchem has not addressed any requests or complaints to me, I consider that the effective exercise of Alchem’s procedural rights has been respected in this case.




Brussels, 2 July 2025.

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) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

(2)  Commission Decision C(2023) 6863 final of 19 October 2023, summary publication (OJ C/2024/6961, 18.11.2024); see also Final Report of the Hearing Officer (OJ C/2024/6970, 18.11.2024).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/698/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)