Final report of the hearing officer in case COMP/E2 C.37.857 — organic peroxides (drawn up in accordance with Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21) (Text with EEA relevance)
OJ C 105, 30.4.2005, p. 2–2 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
CS DA DE EL EN ES ET FI FR HU IT LT LV NL PL PT SK SL SV
|Bilingual display: CS DA DE EL EN ES ET FI FR HU IT LT LV NL PL PT SK SL SV|
Final report of the hearing officer in case COMP/E2 C.37.857 — organic peroxides
(drawn up in accordance with Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)
(Text with EEA relevance)
The draft decision gives rise to the following observations on the right to be heard.
- The Commission began proceedings in April 2000 when AKZO, a Dutch company, provided information about the existence of a cartel. A statement of objections was adopted on 27 March 2003 in respect of the following parties: Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Polymer Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel NV, Atofina SA, Degussa UK Holdings, Peroxid Chemie GmbH & Co.KG, Pergan GmbH, Peroxidos Organicos SA, FMC Foret SA, AC Treuhand AG, the trustee administering the cartel.
- The time allowed to answer the statement of objections was extended by over two weeks at the request of the parties. The final date was 17 June 2003. An oral hearing was held on 26 June 2003, at which:
1. Peroxid Chemie dropped a purely formal argument it had against the statement of objections.
2. New documents were provided by Atochem. I agreed to their inclusion in the file and I gave the other parties two weeks in which to send their comments to the Commission. The content confirmed the Commission's position concerning the duration of the infringement.
In the light of the explanations supplied in the written reply to the statement of objections and at the hearing, the Commission has not continued the proceedings in respect of the infringement referred to in the statement of objections against Pergan GmbH, because it is out of time, and against FMC Foret SA, because no evidence has been found of its responsibility for the conduct of Perorsa, a company with which it has links.
The draft decision submitted to the Commission contains no additional objections and relates only to objections about which the parties have had the opportunity to state their views.
In the light of the above, I believe that the right of the parties to be heard has been fully respected in this case.
Brussels, 2 December 2003.