1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Commission Consultation on Best Practices

Commission Consultation on Best Practices

Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.11.10

On 7 January 2010, the European Commission invited comments on three consultation documents published the same day, namely Best Practices for antitrust proceedings, Best Practices for the submission of economic evidence (both in antitrust and merger proceedings) and Guidance on the role of the Hearing Officers in the context of antitrust proceedings.

The purpose of the documents is to make it easier for companies under investigation to understand how the investigation will proceed, what they can expect from the Commission and what the Commission will expect from them. From the European Commission's perspective, formulated Best Practices are meant to enhance the transparency of investigations, while at the same time ensuring the efficiency of their investigations.

Best Practices on Antitrust Proceedings

Formulations of "Best Practices" usually restate the Commission's experience, policy and practice as it has evolved, but may also be used to bring about changes in its procedure. In antitrust proceedings, important areas where the Commission will be amending its procedures include:

  • earlier opening of formal proceedings, as soon as the initial assessment phase has been concluded,
  • offering state of play meetings to the parties at key points of the proceedings,
  • disclosing key submissions, including giving early access to the complaint, so that parties can already express their views in the investigative phase,
  • publicly announcing the opening and closure of procedures, as well as when Statement of Objections have been sent,
  • providing guidance on how the new instrument of commitment procedures is used in practice.

If implemented, these amendments will increase the quality of the investigation. This is particularly true for an early opening of formal proceedings as well as an early disclosure of key documents. It remains to be seen, however, to what extent the European Commission will actually follow its own Best Practices. These possibilities existed already in the past but were not used by the Commission, while the newly issued Best Practices are not binding. And even if implemented consistently, this would only meet some but not all of the due process concerns raised against the Commission's practice.

Best Practices on the Submission of Economic Evidence

Recognizing the ever-increasing importance of economics in complex cases, the European Commission also issued a consultation document on the submission of economic evidence. The Best Practices outline the criteria which these submissions should fulfill and explain the interaction of the competition department's case teams and the Chief Economist with parties submitting economic evidence.

Guidance Paper on the Hearing Officer

The Guidance Paper on the Hearing Officer sets out the various tasks of the Hearing Officers and delineates how they are usually carried out. It furthermore sets out how companies can make best use of an Oral Hearing. Procedurally, the Guidance Paper explains the reporting obligations and the advisory role of Hearing Officers towards the companies that are addressees of decisions, the Competition Commissioner and the College of Commissioners.

The documents will be applied by the Commission provisionally as of the day of their publication. Stakeholders are free to submit comments over the coming eight weeks until 3 March 2010.

In the past, there were numerous examples of public criticism resulting in formal changes in the consultation documents after the expiration of the period for the submission comments. Crowell & Moring is pleased to assist you in drafting comments on any of the consultation documents. If you want further assistance, please contact the professionals listed to the above or your regular Crowell & Moring contacts.

Links

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights