Category Archives: U

Undertaking

Undertaking

Undertaking in the European Union Law

Concept of Undertaking provided by the “Glossary of terms used in EU competition policy” (Antitrust and control of concentrations, published in 2002): For the purpose of EU antitrust law, any entity engaged in an economic activity, that is, an activity consisting in offering goods or services on a given market, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed, is considered an undertaking. To qualify, no intention to earn profits is required, nor are public bodies by defini-tion excluded. The rules governing concentrations speak of 'undertakings concerned', that is, the direct participants in a merger or in the acqui-sition of control.

(See for details: Commission notice on the concept of undertakings concerned (OJ C 66, 2.3.1998).)

Upstream market

Upstream market

Upstream market in the European Union Law

Concept of Upstream market provided by the “Glossary of terms used in EU competition policy” (Antitrust and control of concentrations, published in 2002): Market at the previous stage of the production/distribution chain, for example, the production, distribution and marketing of motor vehicles would be an upstream market in relation to the sale of motor vehicles to final consumers.

Unbundling

Unbundling

Unbundling in the European Union Law

Concept of Unbundling provided by the “Glossary of terms used in EU competition policy” (Antitrust and control of concentrations, published in 2002): Separation of the various components of production, distribution and service in order to introduce greater elements of competition to these segments of an industry. 'Functional unbundling' requires monopolis-tic utilities to provide access to (part of) their distribution or service network, in exchange for an access fee. 'Structural unbundling' makes complete vertical separation necessary and obliges monopolistic util-ities to divest their production, their distribution or their service assets.

Unmeritorious cases

Unmeritorious cases

No action / non-processing letter (unmeritorious cases)

Non-processing letters: Case dealt with a NCA: When a national competition authority has received a parallel application in a case that is national in scope and is willing to pursue the case, a “non-processing” letter could be considered.

More about Unmeritorious cases

No position taken: infringements covered by limitation period: Under the 2006 Leniency Notice the Commission can refrain from taking a position on whether or not to grant a conditional immunity, if it becomes apparent that the application concerns infringements covered by the five years limitation period under Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation 1/2003, as such applications would be devoid of purpose (point 36 of the Notice). In such cases, DG Competition can close the case with a letter stating that no position is taken on the application.

More about the Subject

No action letters: Only exceptionally a “no action” letter could be considered. The following situations could justify closing the case with a no-action letter:

Other Considerations

The application is manifestly lacking in substance and the applicant cannot provide further information or evidence. Such applications would often merely aim at testing if the authority would consider the matter to be a cartel or to be likely to raise any cartel investigation.

More

The application gives some information on an alleged cartel, but the information is noncorroborated and too vague to meet the point 8(a) criteria, but still detailed enough to give reasonable grounds for suspecting infringement of the competition rules by the undertaking concerned 1 .

More

Such a “no action” letter states that in the absence of further evidence, the Commission services do not currently intend to investigate the matter further but may change their stance at a later stage.

More

Non-eligibility letters: The case is closed with a non-eligibility letter where the conduct reported falls outside the Leniency Notice. A non-eligibility letter represents a de facto rejection of immunity and is distinct from a non-processing or no-action letter where immunity can still be considered in the event that the case is reopened.

Resources

See Also

References

  • Information about Unmeritorious cases in the Antitrust Manual of Procedures for the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (Internal DG Competition)

Notes


[Note 1]
Following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-94/00 Roquette Frères (ECR[2002] I-9011, paragraphs 61, 100) the Commission can carry out an investigation under Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003 if it is in possession of information and evidence providing reasonable grounds for suspecting infringement of the competition rules by the undertaking concerned.

Further Reading

  • Information about Unmeritorious cases in “An Introduction to EU Competition Law”, Moritz Lorenz (Cambridge University Press)

Use of information from national competition authorities

Use of information from national competition authorities

Request for and use of information from national competition authorities (Article 12 and 18 of Reg. 1/2003)

This section contains in brief the steps to take when the Commission wishes to obtain information from NCAs for the purposes of the enforcement of Articles 101 or 102 TFUE. Please see also the module dealing with cooperation within the Network.

More about Use of information from national competition authorities

Because requests may create additional work to the contacted NCA, it is recommended for the case-handlers to first explore informally what kind of information is in possession of the requested NCA. That would allow presenting focused requests.

Resources

See Also

References

  • Information about Use of information from national competition authorities in the Antitrust Manual of Procedures for the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (Internal DG Competition)

Further Reading

  • Information about Use of information from national competition authorities in EU Competition Procedure, 3rd. Edition, Edited by Luis Ortiz Blanco (Oxford University Press)

Use of information provided in interviews

Use of information provided in interviews

Use of information provided in interviews

Information provided during interviews can be used as evidence in the subsequent procedure. The Commission should however carefully assess the credibility of the statements, in particular if it has received conflicting information or if there are reasons that put the credibility of the interviewee in question.

More about Use of information provided in interviews

Where information gathered from statements is exchanged pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation 1/2003, it can only be used in evidence to impose sanctions on natural persons where the conditions set out in that Article are fulfilled.

More about the Subject

According to Article 28 of Regulation 1/2003 information collected pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation 1/2003 may be used only for the purpose for which it was acquired. Accordingly the information provided in the framework of a particular case cannot be used for any other ongoing case, unless the interviewee agrees that the interview was also carried out with the view to this investigation. Written confirmation should be obtained.

Resources

See Also

References

  • Information about Use of information provided in interviews in the Antitrust Manual of Procedures for the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (Internal DG Competition)

Further Reading

  • Information about Use of information provided in interviews in EU Competition Procedure, 3rd. Edition, Edited by Luis Ortiz Blanco (Oxford University Press)

Use of the received information

Use of the received information

Use of the received information

Information received from other Network members in accordance with Article 12 can be used in evidence by the Commission like any other information in the Commission's possession, with the following exceptions, limitations and procedural rules.

More about Use of the received information

Article 12 requires that the use should take place in respect of the subject-matter for which it was collected by the transmitting authority.

More about the Subject

According to the Court of Justice it is not necessary “to delimit precisely the relevant market, to set out the exact legal nature of the presumed infringement and to indicate the period during which those infringements were committed” in order to determine the subject matter of a case 1 .

Other Considerations

Another limitation results from the specific rules relating to leniency applications. If the other Network member had obtained the information from a leniency applicant, the Commission cannot use it to start an investigation (see further Module on Leniency).

More

Information received from an NCA is covered by professional secrecy (Article 28 Reg. 1/2003).

Resources

See Also

References

  • Information about Use of the received information in the Antitrust Manual of Procedures for the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (Internal DG Competition)

Notes


[Note 1]
Judgment of the ECJ of 17 October 1989, Dow Benelux NV, Case 85/87, ECR [1989] p. 3137, paragraph 10.

Further Reading

  • Information about Use of the received information in “An Introduction to EU Competition Law”, Moritz Lorenz (Cambridge University Press)