Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 52014XX0925(02)

Final Report of the Hearing Officer — Power Exchanges (AT.39952)

OJ C 334, 25.9.2014, p. 4–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.9.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/4

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Power Exchanges

(AT.39952)

(2014/C 334/05)

On 22 March 2013, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) against the spot power exchanges EPEX Spot (‘EPEX’) and Nord Pool Spot AS (‘NPS’) (together ‘the parties’).

Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3), the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) on 11 December 2013, addressed to EPEX and NPS, stating that they had participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The SO alleged that the parties had engaged in a non-competition arrangement which included an allocation of territories, with the object of restricting competition between them, in connection with their spot electricity trading services.

In their replies to the SO, both EPEX and NPS confirmed that the SO reflected the content of their settlement submissions.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision addressed to EPEX and NPS 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.

In view of the above, I consider that the effective exercise of their procedural rights in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 3 March 2014.

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) (Decision 2011/695/EU).

(2)  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, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

(3)  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).

Top