Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings
Show Less

Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings

  • ASCOLA Competition Law series

Edited by Paul Nihoul and Tadeusz Skoczny

How substantive competition rules are enforced plays a crucial role in achieving their goals. This thoughtful book examines procedural issues that have arisen from the increased enforcement of competition law worldwide.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details

Chapter 6: The role of the Hearing Officer in antitrust cases. A critical assessment of the new mandate and practice after 2011

Giacomo Di Federico

Extract

In 1981, under some pressure from the industry, lawyers and academics, the European Commission announced the appointment of a Hearing Officer (HO), ‘duly authorized to chair hearings, vested with genuine autonomy and the right of direct access to the responsible Member of the Commission’. This was intended to increase the objectivity of the procedure and favor better-informed decisions. Just one year later, the first mandate was adopted. Initially, the HO was placed under the authority of the Director-General for Competition and was solely responsible for the preparation and conduct of the hearing. Subsequently, in 1994, the HO was entrusted with requests for access to files and confidential treatment of sensitive information. And yet, it was only in 2001 that the HO was attached, for administrative purposes, to the Commissioner for Competition and that his final report was made available to the parties and published in the Official Journal. The mandate of the HO was amended once again in 2011 as part of a broader reordering of antitrust procedures. In fact, it should not be forgotten that the Best Practices for the conduct of proceedings were also adopted in October of that same year, followed, in March 2012, by the release of the Manual of Procedures. The former document was issued after a public consultation conducted in 2010, with the significant participation of the legal and business community as well, to foster ‘understanding of the Commission’s investigation process’.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.