European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

Under Regulation No 17/62, in order to carry out the duties assigned to it, the Commission could “require undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide all necessary information”. The procedure for requesting information took part in two stages. The first stage consisted of a simple request for information being sent to the undertaking or the association of undertakings. If the undertak …

Request procedure

Under Regulation No 17/62, in order to carry out the duties assigned to it, the Commission could “require undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide all necessary information”. The procedure for requesting information took part in two stages. The first stage consisted of a simple request for information being sent to the undertaking or the association of undertakings. If the undertaking failed to provide the information requested within the stated time or where the information provided was incomplete, the Commission could then by way of formal decision, require in stage two the information to be supplied . 

Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003, without establishing any order of priority between requests, only states that “In order to carry out the duties assigned to it by this Regulation, the Commission may, by simple request or by decision, require undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide all necessary information”. It is now no longer necessary when sending a request by way of decision for the Commission to have sent a prior simple request for information to the undertaking . The Commission remains nevertheless bound by the principle of proportionality which requires it to have recourse to the least onerous measure when there is a choice between two .

The request for information is sent to the undertaking or association of undertakings concerned. Paragraph 4 of Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003 provides that “The owners of the undertakings or their representatives [...] shall supply the information requested on behalf of the undertaking or the association of undertakings concerned”. The General Court has ruled that the request for information can be addressed to a financial holding company insofar as it is likely that the company itself or the companies it controls are in possession of the information sought . When the recipient of a request for information has its head office in a third country, the choice of the official language of the contested decision must take into account the relations established between that undertaking and a Member State . When the undertaking asks for a language version of the decision in its possession, the Commission is obliged to accede to that request . However, sending a request for information to an undertaking in a language other than its own does not violate the rights of defense when its answers demonstrate that it was able to understand the request and was not obligated to respond in that language .

The request for information may take place at a late stage of the procedure: there is nothing to prevent such a request being sent after the adoption of the Statement of Objections .

Case 136/79 National Panasonic v Commission [1980] ECR 2033, LawLex200500004051JBJ: the second stage is only instigated where the first stage has been carried out unsuccessfully. A passive reaction by the undertaking concerned is deemed sufficient to constitute a failure to comply with its obligation to actively cooperate with the investigation; there is no requirement that the undertaking manifestly obstruct the Commission in the carrying out of its task.

Case T-458/09 Slovak Telekom a.s. v  Commission, Judgment of 22 March 2012, LawLex201200000670JBJ.

Case T-292/11 Cemex SAB de CV, Judgment of 14 March 2014, not available in English and Case T-306/11 Schwenk Zement KG, Judgment of 20 March 2014, not available in English.

Case T-305/11 Italmobiliare v Commission, Judgment of 14 March 2014, not available in English.

Case T-292/11 Cemex SAB de CV, Judgment of 14 March 2014, not available in English, ruling that the sending of a request in Spanish to a company established in Mexico with a subsidiary in Spain is justified.

Case T-292/11 Cemex SAB de CV, cited above.

Case T-441/14 Brugg Kabel AG, Judgment of 12 July 2018,  LawLex202100001603JBJ.

Case T-371/17 Qualcomm Inc., Judgment of 9 April 2019, LawLex201900000508JBJ, upheld in Case C-466/19 P Qualcomm Inc., Judgment of 28 January 2021, LawLex202100000263JBJ.

European Competition Law

205. Request procedure

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

205. Request procedure

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise