The draft decision is addressed to SwissP Defence AG (formerly RUAG Ammotec AG) and RUAG International Holding AG (‘RUAG’); and Diehl Defence GmbH & Co. KG (formerly Diehl BGT Defence GmbH & Co. KG) and Diehl Stiftung & Co. KG (‘Diehl’) (together, ‘the Parties’). It concerns a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area that consisted in the allocation of national markets between the Parties for the sale of military hand grenades, which also included exchange of competitively sensitive information. The infringement lasted from 7 November 2007 to 23 November 2021  (2) and covered the European Economic Area.

On 15 April 2021 RUAG applied for immunity from fines under points 14 and 15 of the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (‘the Leniency Notice’) (3). On 12 November 2021, the Commission granted RUAG conditional immunity from fines under point 18 of the Leniency Notice.

Between 23 November and 25 November 2021, the Commission carried out an unannounced inspection at the premises of Diehl.

On 24 February 2022 Diehl applied for immunity from fines under point 14 of the Leniency Notice or, in the alternative, for a reduction of fines under point 27 of the Leniency Notice.

On 18 January 2023, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (4) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (5).

The Parties signalled their willingness to engage in settlement discussions which took place between February and May 2023. In June 2023, the Parties submitted settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004.

The Commission adopted a statement of objections addressed to the Parties on 3 July 2023. In their respective replies to the statement of objections, the Parties confirmed, pursuant to Article 10a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, that the statement of objections reflected the contents of their settlement submissions and that they therefore remained committed to following the settlement procedure.

The Parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me pursuant to Article 15(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU (6).

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

(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)  RUAG’s participation in the conduct is considered to have ended on 15 April 2021 when RUAG applied for immunity.

(3)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 298, 8.12.2006, p. 17).

(4)  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 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).

(5)  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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 622/2008 (OJ L 171, 1.7.2008, p. 3) and Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1348 (OJ L 208, 5.8.2015, p. 3).

(6)  Under Article 15(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU, parties to 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.