According to the Best Practices Notice 1<\/a> , where required by the rights of defence 2<\/a> , or where it may in the Commission's view help to further clarify factual and legal issues relevant for the case, the Commission may give parties a copy of the non-confidential version (or specific parts thereof) of other parties' written replies to the Statement of Objections. This would normally be done prior to the oral hearing, so as to allow parties to comment on them at the oral hearing. The Commission may also decide to do so in appropriate cases with respect to complainants and admitted third parties. If access to other parties' replies is granted because it is required for the rights of the defence parties are also entitled to have sufficient additional time to comment on these replies.<\/p>\n The parties' replies to the SO and observations made by other persons in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation 773\/2004 constitute information which does not form part of the investigation file to which access to file is granted. In principle, the Commission terminates the investigation when the SO is issued. Accordingly, information received after this point in time does not form part of the investigation file. Otherwise, the proceedings could be delayed significantly by requests to comment on new documents submitted belatedly and subsequent requests to submit further remarks on such comments, with the result that the exercise would never end.<\/p>\n Further access to file only needs to be granted if the Commission receives new documents which contain inculpatory or exculpatory information which could alter the allegations contained in the SO (see in more detail Module on Access to file).<\/p>\n According to the Best Practices Notice 1<\/a> , where required by the rights of defence 2<\/a> , or where it may in the Commission's view help to further clarify …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2389,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[183],"tags":[152,184,153],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/436"}],"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=436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/competition.lawlegal.eu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}More about Third parties replies to the Statement of Objections<\/h3>\n
More about the Subject<\/h3>\n
Resources<\/h2>\n
See Also<\/h3>\n
References<\/h3>\n
\n
Notes<\/h3>\n
[Note 1]<\/a> Commission notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (OJ C 308, 20.10.2011, p. 6).
[Note 2]<\/a> See Joined Cases T-191\/98 and T-212\/98 to T-214\/98 Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II- 3275; Case T-54\/03 Lafarge v Commission [2008] ECR II-120, paragraphs 69-73; Case T-52\/03 Knauf v Commission [2008] ECR II-115, paragraphs 41-47, 67-79; Case C-407\/08P Knauf v Commission, judgment of 1 July 2010 (not yet reported), paragraphs 23-28.<\/p>\nFurther Reading<\/h3>\n
\n
Parties, third parties and complaints<\/h2>\n