The cover letter, signed by the Director General and sent with the SO, fixes a time-limit within which the undertaking must deliver its written reply (Article 10(2) of Reg. 773\/2004). It also offers the undertaking the opportunity to be heard orally and indicates that such a hearing would be likely to take place about a month following the reply.<\/p>\n
The time limit for the reply to the SO will take into account both the time required for the preparation of the submission and the urgency of the case. The parties have a right to a period of at least four weeks to reply to the SO. 1<\/a> A longer period (normally, a period of 2 months, although this may be longer or shorter depending on the circumstances of the case) will be granted, taking into account inter alia the size and complexity of the file (e.g. number of infringements, the alleged duration of the infringement(s), the size and number of documents and \/or size and complexity of expert studies), and\/or whether the addressee of the SO making the request has had prior access to the information (e.g. key submissions, leniency applications), and\/or any other objective obstacles faced by the addressee of the SO (cf. Best Practices Notice, paragraph 100).<\/p>\n For a supplementary SO the above rules on setting the time limit for the reply to the SO apply, although any extension of time granted will normally be shorter (cf. Best Practices Notice, paragraphs 100 and 110).<\/p>\n The deadline to reply to the SO cannot start running before the parties have received the most important documents from the Commission file. 2<\/a> Deadlines start to run as from the day after the receipt of the CD\/DVD containing all non-confidential documents. In case access has to be granted to corporate statements made under the leniency programme, the calculation of the deadline takes into account additional time necessary for organizing the access to be provided at DG Competition premises. The deadlines are calculated pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1182\/71 of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits. 3<\/a> <\/p>\n For extension of the deadline: If a party considers that the deadline is too short, it can seek an extension, within the initial time-limit, by making a reasoned request to DG Competition at least 10 working days before the expiry of the original time limit. 4<\/a> <\/p>\n If the extension is refused or in case of disagreement on the length of the extension granted, the requesting party is entitled to refer the matter for decision to the Hearing Officer by way of a statement explaining the reason why an extension is considered necessary and indicating the length of time required. The legal situation in this respect is laid down in Articles 10(2) and 17(2) of Regulation 773\/2004, and Article 9 of HO Terms of Reference. The Hearing Officer will hear the Director responsible for the case before taking his\/her decision and will inform the undertaking and DG Competition in writing. 5<\/a> <\/p>\n The criteria applied by the Hearing Officer in taking the decision are listed in Article 9(1) of the HO Terms of Reference: – the size and complexity of the file (for example, the number of infringements, the alleged duration of the infringement(s), the size and number of documents and\/or the size and complexity of expert studies); – whether the addressee of the statement of objection making the request has had prior access to information; and\/or – any other objective obstacles which may be faced by the addressee of the statement of objection making the request in providing its observations.<\/p>\n Failure to reply within the fixed deadline does not affect the pursuit of the procedure. Pursuant to Article 10(2) of Regulation 773\/2004 “[t]he Commission shall not be obliged to take into account written submissions received after the expiry of that time-limit”.<\/p>\n The cover letter, signed by the Director General and sent with the SO, fixes a time-limit within which the undertaking must deliver its written reply (Article 10(2) of Reg. 773\/2004). It also offers the undertaking the opportunity to be heard orally and indicates th…<\/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":[152,153],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374"}],"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=374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=374"}],"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
Resources<\/h2>\n
See Also<\/h3>\n
References<\/h3>\n
\n
Notes<\/h3>\n
[Note 1]<\/a> Article 17(2) of Regulation 773\/2004.
[Note 2]<\/a> Case T-44\/00, Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission [2004] ECR II-2223, paragraph 65.
[Note 3]<\/a> OJ L 124, 8.6.1971, p. 1.
[Note 4]<\/a> Best Practices Notice, paragraph 101.
[Note 5]<\/a> Id., Article 9(1).<\/p>\nFurther Reading<\/h3>\n
\n
Time-limits and extension<\/h2>\n