EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52018XX0921(04)
Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case AT.40182 — Pioneer
Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case AT.40182 — Pioneer
Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Case AT.40182 — Pioneer
C/2018/4790
OJ C 338, 21.9.2018, p. 17–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.9.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 338/17 |
Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)
Case AT.40182 — Pioneer
(2018/C 338/10)
(1)
The draft decision addressed to Pioneer Europe NV (‘Pioneer Europe’), Pioneer GB Ltd and their ultimate parent company Pioneer Corporation (together, ‘Pioneer’) finds that Pioneer infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA through practices aimed at restricting the ability of retailers to determine their resale prices independently and restricting the territories into which retailers could sell.
(2)
The investigation started with unannounced inspections at the premises of Pioneer Europe in Belgium in December 2013.
(3)
Shortly after the inspection, Pioneer indicated its interest to cooperate with the Commission. On […], Pioneer submitted further evidence regarding the relevant conduct.
(4)
On 2 February 2017, the Commission initiated proceedings within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2) against Pioneer Europe, Pioneer Corporation and all legal entities directly or indirectly controlled by them. On 7 February 2017, the Commission addressed a request for information to Pioneer Europe, to which Pioneer Europe replied on 27 February 2017.
(5)
On […], Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Europe submitted a formal offer to cooperate (‘Settlement Submission’). The Settlement Submission contains:|
— |
an acknowledgement in clear and unequivocal terms of Pioneer Corporation’s and Pioneer Europe’s joint and several liability for the infringement summarily described as regards its object, the main facts, their legal qualification, including their role and the duration of their participation in the infringement. Pioneer Europe also acknowledged liability on behalf of Pioneer GB Ltd, |
|
— |
an indication of the maximum amount of the fine Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Europe expect to be imposed by the Commission and which they would accept in the context of a cooperation procedure, |
|
— |
the confirmation that Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Europe have been sufficiently informed of the objections the Commission envisages raising against them and that they have been given sufficient opportunity to make their views known to the Commission, |
|
— |
the confirmation that Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer Europe do not envisage requesting further access to the file or requesting to be heard again in an oral hearing, unless the Commission does not reflect its Settlement Submission in the statement of objections (the ‘SO’) and the decision, |
|
— |
the agreement to receive the SO and the final decision in English. |
(6)
On 7 June 2018, the Commission adopted the SO, to which Pioneer Europe, Pioneer GB Ltd and Pioneer Corporation replied jointly by reiterating their commitment to follow the cooperation procedure and confirming that the SO reflected the content of the Settlement Submission. Pioneer Europe, Pioneer GB Ltd and Pioneer Corporation confirmed that they did not wish to be heard again by the Commission.
(7)
The infringement found and the fines imposed in the draft decision correspond to those acknowledged and accepted in the Settlement Submission. The amount of the fines is reduced by 50 % on the ground that Pioneer has cooperated with the Commission beyond its legal obligation to do so by: (i) providing additional evidence representing significant added value with respect to the evidence already in the Commission’s possession as that evidence strengthened to a very large extent the Commission’s ability to prove the infringement; (ii) acknowledging the infringement of Article 101 TFEU in relation to the conduct; and (iii) waiving certain procedural rights, resulting in administrative efficiencies.
(8)
In accordance with Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which Pioneer Europe, Pioneer GB Ltd and Pioneer Corporation have been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does.
(9)
Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected in this case.
Brussels, 12 July 2018.
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).
(2) 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).