If the intention is to investigate the case further the complainant should be informed. A short letter by the Head of Unit is sufficient. The complainant should also be informed of the initiation of proceedings, unless such information is inappropriate.<\/p>\n
In the spirit of encouraging an open exchange of views the Commission will, in cases based on formal complaints, provide the parties subject to the proceedings, at an early stage (unless such is considered likely to prejudice the investigation) and at the latest shortly after the opening of proceedings, with the opportunity of commenting on a non-confidential version of the complaint 1<\/a> .<\/p>\n According to Article 27 of Regulation 1\/2003, before the Commission takes decisions as provided for in Article 7, 8, 23 and Article 24(2), complainants should be associated closely with the proceedings. The complainant can help the Commission in supplying evidence of the anticompetitive practice and thus in establishing the infringement. However, the formal complainant has less extensive procedural guarantees than the company subject to the investigation.<\/p>\n Where appropriate, documents such as replies to requests for information can be provided to the complainant insofar as business secrets are duly protected and the suppliers of the information have been informed.<\/p>\n A non-confidential version of the reply of the party subject to the investigation to the complaint may be provided to the complainant. However, this may not be the case where the complaint is rejected at an early stage without further in-depth investigation 2<\/a> .<\/p>\n According to Article 6(1) of Regulation 773\/2004, the Commission provides the complainant with a copy of the non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections and sets a time-limit within which the complainant may make known its views in writing. A deadline of a maximum of one month is given for comments. The transmission is made for the sole purpose of the proceedings under Regulation 1\/2003, without prejudice to the case-law of the Courts 3<\/a> .<\/p>\n Where appropriate, non-confidential versions of the replies to the Statement of Objections can be given to the complainant, provided that business secrets are not disclosed and that the suppliers of the information have been consulted.<\/p>\n Where appropriate, non-confidential versions of the complainants' comments may be sent to the undertaking(s) complained of.<\/p>\n Pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation 773\/2004, the Commission may, where appropriate, afford complainants the opportunity of expressing their views at the oral hearing of the parties to which a Statement of Objections has been issued, if complainants so request in their written comments. See further in the Module Right to be heard.<\/p>\n If the intention is to investigate the case further the complainant should be informed. A short letter by the Head of Unit is sufficient. The complainant should also be informed of the initiation of proceedings, unless such information is inappro…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2389,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[125],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2389"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}More about the Subject<\/h3>\n
Other Considerations<\/h3>\n
More<\/h3>\n
More<\/h3>\n
More<\/h3>\n
More<\/h3>\n
More<\/h3>\n
Resources<\/h2>\n
See Also<\/h3>\n
References<\/h3>\n
\n
Notes<\/h3>\n
[Note 1]<\/a> Notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (OJ C 308, 20.10.2011, p. 6) (“Best Practices Notice”), paragraph 71.
[Note 2]<\/a> Best Practices Notice, paragraph 71.
[Note 3]<\/a> See e.g. Case T-353\/94 Postbank [1996] ECR II-921<\/p>\nFurther Reading<\/h3>\n
\n
Handling of Complaints: Further investigation<\/h2>\n