The following instructions start from the assumption that the Commission is in possession of the requested information. Where that is not the case, the case team should indicate this during the informal contacts to the other authority. If the case-handler realises after having informally agreed to the transmission that the Commission is not able to send the requested information, this should be briefly and without delay explained to the requesting authority. If need be, the impossibility of transmission can be confirmed in writing by the head of unit.<\/p>\n
There could be such an impossibility to transmit the requested information in the Commission's possession in the following situations: – A leniency applicant does not consent to the forwarding of (some of) his submissions and the consent is needed. This follows from the Network Notice (cf. points 40 and 41); – The information was received from an informant having provided market information, as compared to a formal complainant, and the informant does not consent to the forwarding of the information. This is essential to respect the trust of the informant and to create a framework where potential informants are not inhibited from providing such information.<\/p>\n
Other situations where the case-handler concluded on such impossibility should be communicated to the ECN unit for a common position.<\/p>\n
The transmission of the requested information can be authorised by the responsible head of unit. Except in cases where no confidentiality issue exists, the exchange of information takes place in encrypted form via a secure e-mail system. Therefore, except in cases where no confidentiality issue could arise, case teams should not send the requested documents themselves but instead provide the necessary information and documents to the ADO of DG Competition, who takes care of the transmission.<\/p>\n
Information should be sent to the person whose contact details are indicated in the request. However, if the other authority has given in the request a name other than the ADO, sensitive information should always be sent from the ADO of the Commission to the ADO of the requesting authority.<\/p>\n
If the documents exist in electronic form preference should be given to an electronic transfer, unless deemed inappropriate.<\/p>\n
If the language of the transmitted information is different from (one of) the official language(s) of the receiving authority and if the request does not lead to an unreasonable burden on the unit responsible for the transmission, it will in principle provide the receiving authority with an index of that information in a language understood by the latter.<\/p>\n
The note accompanying the requested information should indicate: _ in which case the information was obtained (e.g. case x against party y) and the subject-matter for which it was collected; _ where, when and how the information was obtained (e.g. inspection, formal information request, informant or informal telephone conversation); _ whether there are any pending claims by the parties regarding this information; _ whether any of the information gathering measures were challenged before a court; _ whether, and at what stage, the Commission has any inquiries still pending; _ whether, to what extent and for which reasons, the parties claim confidentiality; it is possible to group together documents for which confidentiality is claimed.<\/p>\n
The transmission should take place as soon as possible and no later than within one month from the date of receipt of the request.<\/p>\n
The following instructions start from the assumption that the Commission is in possession of the requested information. Where that is not the case, the case team should indicate this during the informal contacts to the other authority. If the case-handler …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2389,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[164],"tags":[52,53],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373"}],"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=373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}