Due Process in EU Competition Law -

1. Fifth Annual Conference on Competition Enforcement in the CCE Member States21 February 2014, Bratislava Due Process in EU Competition Law - Recent Package of Best Practices and Mandate for the Hearing Officer Paul Csiszár Director Markets and Cases IV: Basic Industries, Manufacturing and Agriculture DG Competition

2. Drivers for change Why does improving enforcement procedures matter? • enhancesfact-finding ability • helps to avoid errors • wins stakeholder respect • ensures accountability • supports intervention by agencies

3. Respect of procedural rights and transparency How to integrate these principles? • Each agency has its own solutions to common problems: there is no one-size fits all formula • Agencies should seek constant improvement: there must be willingness to listen and adjust • Need to bear in mind the need for efficient proceedings

4. The EU System of Competition Enforcement Final Review by Court of Justice Judicial Review by General Court European Commission (integrated public enforcer)

5. The EU System of Competition Enforcement • EU enforcement system of an integrated authority plus court review is fundamentally sound • The recent judgment of the ECtHR (Menarini) confirms that this system is compliant with the ECHR • The Commission’s enforcement procedures are subject to the rule of law and ensure a high standard of procedural rights • The Commission is committed to ensuring the “right outcome” and has in place a range of internal checks and balances

6. Checks and Balances Decision taken by the College Within DG COMP Hierarchical approval Independentreview functions - Reporting directlyto the Competition Commissioner Other Commission departments Member States’ competition authorities Peer review panel Legal Service Advisory Committee Horizontal Case coordination Chief Economist Other Commission DGs Hearing Officer(interim report) Hearing Officer(final report) DG COMP case team

7. Comprehensive rights of defence and procedural guarantees for parties • Procedural rights and guarantees during the investigation phase • Right to receive a Statement of Objections • Full right of access to the Commission’s investigation file • Right to be heard: • Right to respond to the Commission’s objections • Right to a formal oral hearing • Right to a reasoned decision

8. Room for Improvement New package of measures: • Definitive Best Practices: increase interaction with parties and enhance transparency and predictability of proceedings • Revised Hearing Officer’s Mandate: strengthens mechanisms for safeguarding procedural rights

9. How we got there Four steps: • Publication of a draft set of Antitrust Best Practices, the Hearing Officer Guidance and Best Practices for the submission of economic evidence, published in 2010 • Ensured immediate, provisional application • Gainedexperience and listened to stakeholders • Made adjustments, factoring in the need for efficient proceedings, and make definitive

10. Increasing transparency and predictability Antitrust Best Practices • Provide A-Z of antitrust proceedings for the first time • Provide guidance as to how commitment procedure works in practice • Provide greater transparency to all stakeholders (public announcements at key stages, publication of rejection of complaints) • Improve interaction with parties

11. Enhanced interaction with parties Antitrust Best Practices • Early opening of proceedings so that parties & scope of investigation is known rapidly • State of Play meetings to the parties offered at key points of the proceedings • Earlyaccess to key submissions, including the complaint • Inclusion of a section on finesin the Statement of Objections, including parameters for the calculation of possible fines. Greater transparency also introduced with regard to Inability to Pay requests.

12. Enhanced interaction with parties (cont.) BPs on submission of economic evidence • Outline the criteria economic and econometric analysis provided by companies should fulfil • Will streamline the submission, and assessment of, such economic evidence • Explains practice of DG COMP when interacting with parties which submit economic evidence

13. New safeguards to ensure respect of procedural rights Revised Mandate for the Hearing Officer: • The HO is independent of DG COMP and has ensured respect of the right to be heard since 1982 • Expands and consolidates role of the HO: • Expands the role of the HO to encompass the effective exercise of procedural rights throughout proceedings • Reinforces and bolsters the independence of the HO • Increases possibilities to go to HO as independent arbiter • Does not fundamentally change role of HO or the oral hearing

14. New safeguards to ensure respect of procedural rights (cont.) • HO new role in investigation phase: LPP, right not to self-incriminate, deadlines, information on procedural status • Report on procedural rights throughout proceedings • Commitments / settlements: HO role as introduced in the settlements procedure reflected and extended to commitment procedures • Enhances means of preparation of the Oral Hearing

15. To conclude • The Best Practices and the revised Hearing Officer Mandate are intended to underline the Commission’s commitment to constantly improve its procedures • Transparent and fair procedures benefit not just the parties, but are crucial for an effective and credible competition regime

16. Thank you for your attention!