Final Report of the Hearing Officer – Case AT.40966 – Synthetic Turf (Procedure)
Date: 2025-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, anti-trust legislation, control of restrictive practices, disclosure of information, sanction (EU), sports facilities, subsidiary








C_202600693EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/693


30.1.2026






Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40966 – Synthetic Turf (Procedure)
(C/2026/693)


1.   

The draft decision, based on Article 23(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2), imposes a fine on Eurofield S.A.S. and Unanime Sport S.A.S. (referred to jointly as the ‘Parties’) for having supplied incomplete information in response to a request for information by decision pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.



2.   
On 2 July 2025, following various exchanges, the Parties submitted a formal offer to cooperate with the Commission in this case (the ‘Cooperation Submission’). The Cooperation Submission contained:






—


an acknowledgement, in clear and unequivocal terms, by the Parties of their joint and several liability for the infringement described in the Cooperation Submission,










—


an indication of the maximum fine that the Parties would accept in the context of the cooperation procedure,










—


statements that the Parties had been sufficiently informed of the objections the Commission envisages raising against them and that they had been given sufficient opportunity to make their views known to the Commission during their discussions,










—


statements that the Parties had been granted sufficient opportunity to access the evidence supporting the objections and any other documents in the Commission’s file, and that they did not envisage requesting further access to the documents in the file or to be heard again in the form of an oral hearing, unless the Commission’s conclusions set out in the Statement of Objections (‘SO’) did not reflect the contents of the Cooperation Submission, and










—


the Parties’ agreement to receive the SO and the final decision pursuant to Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, in English.






3.   

On 23 July 2025, the Commission adopted an SO addressed to the Parties. The Parties replied to the SO on 5 August 2025, confirming that the SO reflected the content of their Cooperation Submission, reiterating their commitment to follow the cooperation procedure, and confirming that they did not wish to be heard again by the Commission.



4.   

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. Indeed, the draft decision corresponds to what the Parties acknowledged and accepted in the Cooperation Submission.



5.   

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected in this case.




Brussels, 4 September 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)  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, page 1) (‘Regulation (EC) No 1/2003’).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/693/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)