19.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/6

(1)

On 24-26 November 2009, the Commission conducted an inspection pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) at the premises of J&T Investment Advisors, s.r.o. (hereinafter ‘J&T IA’) (3) and Energetický a průmyslovy holding, a.s. (hereinafter ‘EPH’) (4).

(2)

On 17 May 2010, the Commission opened proceedings, pursuant to Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, against J&T IA and EPH (hereinafter ‘the parties’) concerning an alleged refusal to submit to the inspection (5).

(3)

On 17 December 2010, the Commission adopted a statement of objections (‘SO’) against J&T IA and EPH concerning an alleged infringement as referred to in Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The objections related to three incidents that took place during the inspection.

(4)

The parties received access to the Commission's file on 6 January 2011. I did not received any request from the parties regarding access to the file, and therefore conclude that no problem arose in this regard.

(5)

The parties submitted written comments on the SO on 17 February 2011, within the time limit set by the Commission. In their written comments, the parties requested to develop their arguments at an oral hearing, which took place on 25 March 2011.

(6)

In the letter inviting the parties to the oral hearing, I included certain questions of clarification relating to one of the three incidents that occurred during the inspection and was mentioned in the SO (6). The parties were invited to address these questions at the oral hearing, and this led to a helpful discussion concerning this incident at the oral hearing.

(7)

Following the oral hearing, the parties were informed by the Directorate-General for Competition during a state-of-play meeting that the Commission would not further pursue the one incident which is mentioned in paragraph 6 above.

(8)

Also following the oral hearing, the Commission addressed to EPIA and EPH a supplementary statement of objections (‘SSO’) on 15 July 2011, changing the qualification of the alleged infringement for another one of the three incidents from intentional to intentional or at least negligent.

(9)

The parties were granted access to the file on 1 August 2011 and submitted written comments on the SSO within the time limit set by the Commission. They requested to develop their arguments at a second oral hearing, which took place on 13 October 2011.

(10)

Pursuant to Article 16 of the Terms of Reference, 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, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

(11)

Overall, I conclude that the parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case.