Robert McLeod, Mar 16, 2010
With European Commission regulators coming under pressure from all sides to improve procedures and tackle allegations of not respecting due process in its investigations, the function of the oral hearings held in merger and antitrust cases and the role of the Hearing Officer who presides over them are facing particular scrutiny. The hearings taking place in Brussels into competition and antitrust cases are shrouded in secrecy and, depending on who you talk to (and when you talk to them), are either a complete waste of time or a brilliant opportunity to make a case.
Leaving aside issues relating to the structure of the hearings themselves and the role of the hearing officer, the introduction of meaningful transparency into the system will lead to an immediate improvement in the process. At the same time, the amount of disinformation disseminated through off-record briefings can be substantially curtailed.
Adding that meaningful transparency to the system will require two relatively simple steps: publication of the non-confidential version of the Statement of Objections–effectively the regulator’s charge sheet–and opening hearings to the press. It should also be noted that increased transparency will not only provide greater comfort for those involved in the hearings, it would also go some way to improving the advocacy of competition policy and its implementation by reducing the effect of misinformation and lobbying.
