Response to the European Commission Public Consultation on the Revision of Regulation 1/2003 about EU Antitrust Procedural Rules

We believe that certain areas need clarification to ensure the revision supports effective enforcement and provides legal certainty for the benefit of EU businesses and consumers. Regulation 1/2003 was revolutionary. ICC understands from the call for contribution that the Commission does not intend to conduct a new revolution but rather to improve or complete the existing regulation without changing its logic. ICC globally agrees with this approach, since the logic of Regulation 1/2003 (self -assessment of behaviours by companies under the threat of ex post investigations and punishments) has worked well for the past two decades.

However, there is at least one important revolution that is wanted and that the Commission does not seem to consider: The Commission is one of the rare competition authorities in the world where investigation and decision -making are entrusted to the same people, and without a proper opportunity for accused companies or complainants to orally argue their case before the official decision -making persons ( i.e. the Commissioners). Admittedly, both the EUCJ and the ECHR have accepted this situation. But it remains shocking from a theoretical point of view and non -optimal from a practical point of view. All the ICC members who have experienced procedures in other EU or non -EU jurisdictions know that it is frequent for a (administrative or judicial) decision -making body not to follow the recommendations of an investigating body, notably after arguments have been exchanged during a hearing: sound procedures are the best way to bring out the truth.

ICC considers that the preparation of a new procedural regulation is an excellent
opportunity to address this issue. However, ICC is also conscious that solving this
problem is difficult, both from a legal and a practical point of view, notably because the powers of the Commission are embedded in the Treaties, which means that a new regulation can only offer second best solutions. But some progresses could be made.

The easiest approach would be to separate within the Commission’s services an
investigating body from a decision -proposing body. Both would be under the high
authority of the Commission (seen as the meeting of Commissioners) but they would
otherwise work independently from each other. Both the investigating body and the European Commission, press release 10 July 2025, IP/25/1795, ‘Commission seeks
companies would orally argue their case not before a hearing officer but before the very members of the decision -proposing body who would draft the proposed decision
submitted to the competition Commissioner and later to the Commission. The
investigating body and the companies would be able to cross -examine each other and to have witnesses or experts responding to questions before the decision -proposing body. If all the parties are ready to skip the oral step, for the sake of simplicity or rapidity, they could do it.

Our contribution follows the structure of the Commission’s call for contributions