Information Requested

Information Requested

Information which can be requested

Pursuant to Article 18, the Commission may require undertakings and associations of undertakings to provide all necessary information. Information is necessary if it might enable the Commission to verify the existence of the alleged infringement referred to in the request which justified the initiation of the inquiry 1 . The Commission enjoys a margin of appreciation in this respect 2 .

More about Information Requested

It is for the Commission to define the scope and the format of the request for information. Where appropriate, DG Competition might however discuss with the addressees the scope and the format of the request for information. This may be particularly useful in cases of requests concerning quantitative data. 3

More about the Subject

When, in a reply to a request for information, undertakings submit manifestly irrelevant information (in particular documents which are clearly not related to the subject-matter of the investigation), DG Competition may, in order not to unnecessarily burden the often voluminous administrative file, return such information to the addressee of the request as early as possible after having received the reply. A short notice reporting this fact will be put in the file.

Other Considerations

Requests for information should not include confidential information submitted by parties/third parties.


See Also


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


$$1%% See the Notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (OJ C 308, 20.10.2011, p. 6) (“Notice on Antitrust Best Practices”), paras. 33-35.
[Note 1]
Case 374/87 SEP v. Commission, [1991] ECR II-1497 (para.25-29)
[Note 2]
regards the Commission's discretion in shaping the enquiry, see Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl v Commission [1999] ECR II-347, paragraph 110; Case T-9/99 HFB and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II-1487, paragraph 384; Case T-48/00 Corus UK v Commission [2004] ECR II-2325, paragraph 212. In exercising its discretion, the Commission is bound by the principle of proportionality and, in relation to Article 18(3) decisions, must respect the privilege against self-incrimination.
[Note 3]
See the Best Practice on the submission of economic evidence.

Further Reading

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *