Right to Be Heard under the Competition Act 2010: A Comprehensive Analysis
Keywords:
Competition Investigation, Competition Commission of Pakistan, Right to be Heard, Hearing Officer, Enforcement of Competition Law, Robust DefenseAbstract
The right to be heard stands as a cornerstone in the robustness of competition investigations, ensuring a fair and transparent process for parties involved. This crucial right allows parties undergoing competition investigations in both the European Union and Pakistan to articulate their perspectives and substantiate their positions with supporting evidence, thereby forming a robust defense against assertions made by competition authorities. While both the European Commission and the Competition Commission of Pakistan have implemented measures such as objection notices and access to records to uphold this right, challenges persist. The Competition Commission of Pakistan lacks comprehensive guidelines for parties' defense rights, leaving room for interpretation. To enhance the administration of the right to be heard, the Competition Commission of Pakistan should issue detailed guidelines for fair investigations, akin to international standards. Moreover, establishing an independent forum, similar to the European Union's Hearing Officer, could further safeguard this right and provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. Enhancing procedural clarity, transparency, and addressing timing issues are essential steps in protecting the right to be heard in competition investigations, contributing to fair and effective enforcement of competition law.
References
Amendments to the Commission Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Articles 53, 54, and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. (2015). OJ C 256, 5.8.2015, p. 3
Case 107/82. Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft AEG-Telefunken AG v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:1983:293
Case 322/81. NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:1983:313
Case 60/81. International Business Machines Corporation v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:1981:264
Case 81/72. Commission v Council. ECLI:EU:C:1973:60
Case 85/76. Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:1979:36
Case C-289/04P. Showa Denko KK v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:2006:431
Case C‑328/05 P. SGL Carbon AG v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:2007:277
Case C-413/06 P. Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America v Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala). ECLI:EU:C:2008:392
Case C-62/86. AKZO Chemie BV v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:1991:286
Case T-260/11. Kingdom of Spain v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:2014:555
Case T-260/94. Air Inter SA v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:1997:89
Case T-30/91. Solvay SA v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:1995:115
Case T-7/89. Hercules Chemicals v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:1991:75
Case T-7/89. SA Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:1991:75
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. (2004). OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p.18
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1348 of 3 August 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No. 773/2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. (2015). OJ L 208, 5.8.2015, p. 3
Commissioner of Income Tax and others v Messrs Media Network and others, 2006 PTD 2502
The Competition Act No. XIX of 2010. (2010). Published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, 13 October 2010
Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations. (2007). SRO. No. 1189(I) 2007. Published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, 8 December 2007
Competition Commission of Pakistan. (2023).
http://www.cc.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168&Itemid=1 06&lang=en
Competition Commission of Pakistan. (2009). LPG Association of Pakistan Jamshoro Joint Venture Ltd Order. 14.12.2009.
http://www.cc.gov.pk/images/Downloads/lpg_final_order_proof_15_december_2009.pdf
Competition Commission of Pakistan. (2010). Pakistan Poultry Association Order, 16.8.2010. http://www.cc.gov.pk/images/Downloads/ppa_order_16_august_2010.pdf
Competition Commission of Pakistan. (2023, September 21). Press Release. “Supreme Court upholds CCP’s Enquiry and Information gathering Powers”.
https://cc.gov.pk/home/viewpressreleases/419
Competition Commission of Pakistan. Guidelines on Conduct of Proceedings before the Commission, http://www.cc.gov.pk/images/Downloads/guidlines/conduct_of_proc.pdf
Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. OJ C 202, 7.6.2016
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty. (2003). OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1
Decision of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings. (2011). OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29
European Commission. (1983). XIIth Report on Competition Policy 1982. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
European Commission. (2004). Notice on the handling of complaints by the Commission under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 65
European Commission. (2005). Notice on the rules for access to the Commission file in cases pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, Articles 53, 54 and 57 of the EEA Agreement and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. OJ C 325, 22.12.2005, p. 7
European Commission. (2011). Notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. OJ C 308, 20.10.2011, p. 6
European Commission. (2012). “Antitrust Manual of Procedures”. Internal DG Competition working documents on procedures for the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/antitrust_manproc_3_2012_en.pdf
European Commission. Guidance on procedures of the Hearing Officers in proceedings relating to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_best_practices/hearing_officers.pdf
Ezrachi, A. (2012). EU Competition Law: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases. Oxford: Hart Publishing
Fatima, S. (2023). “Competition Leniency Regulations 2019: A Comprehensive Review”. Asian Journal of Academic Research 4(1), 190-203
Fatima, S. (2023). “Rights of Complainant in the Competition Regime of Pakistan: An Appraisal”. Pakistan Journal of Law, Analysis and Wisdom 2(1), 247-270
Flattery, J. (2010). “Balancing Efficiency and Justice in EU Competition Law: Elements of Procedural Fairness and their Impact on the Right to a Fair Hearing”. The Competition Law Review 7(1), 53-81
Giannakopoulos, T.K. (2011). Safeguarding Companies’ Rights in Competition and Anti- dumping/anti-subsidies Proceedings. 2nd Edition. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International
Global Competition Review. (2011, June 22). ‘Rating Enforcement 2011’. Competition Commission of Pakistan,
http://www.cc.gov.pk/images/Downloads/gcrs_sssessment_of_ccp.pdf
Hofmann, H.C.H., Rowe, G.C. and Türk, A.H. (2011). Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union. 1st Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Joined Cases 142/84 and 156/84. British American Tobacco and Reynolds Industries v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:1986:250
Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C- 114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85 and C-125/85 to C-129/85. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission. ECLI:EU:C:1993:120
Joined Cases T-10/92 R, T-11/92 R, T-12/92 R, T-14/92 R, T-15/92 R. Cimenteries CBR SA, Blue Circle Industries plc, Syndicat National des Fabricants de Ciments et de Chaux, Eerste Nederlandse Cement-Industrie NV and Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie and Fédération de l'Industrie Cimentière ASBL v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:1992:45
Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95, T-31/95, T-32/95, T-34/95, T-35/95, T-36/95, T-37/95, T-38/95, T-39/95, T-42/95, T-43/95, T-44/95, T-45/95, T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95, T- 51/95, T-52/95, T-53/95, T-54/95, T-55/95, T-56/95, T-57/95, T-58/95, T-59/95, T-60/95, T-61/95, T-62/95, T-63/95, T-64/95, T-65/95, T-68/95, T-69/95, T-70/95, T-71/95, T- 87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95. Cimenteries CBR and others v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:2000:77
Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00. Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotecknish Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission. ECLI:EU:T:2003:342
Jones, A., and Sufrin, B. (2014). EU Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials. 5th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Lianos, I., and Andreangeli, A. (2012). “The Competition Law System and the Union’s Norms”. In E. M. Fox and M. J. Trebilcock (Eds.), The Design of Competition Law Institutions: Global Norms, Local Choices (pp. 384-443). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Lorenz, M. (2013). An Introduction to EU Competition Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Van Bael, I. (2011). Due Process in EU Competition Proceedings. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Dr. Sayyeda Fatima
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
LEGALOPEDIA EDUCATINIA (PVT) LTD