EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

Prague, Czechia

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

investigation and continually proceeds with the proceedings by taking actions that “constitute an important stage in the investigation and show that authority’s willingness to prosecute the infringement” ( Whiteland ). Moreover, the notification of the statement of objections directly precedes the only other action the OPC can take to interrupt the limitation period which is issuing a decision finding the perpetrator guilty of the administrative offence. Since according to Section 21b of the APC, after the notification of the statement of objections the OPC only give the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to get acquainted with the basis of the decision (all the documents and evidence that are present in the administrative file) and sets a reasonable period (of at least 15 days) within which the parties may propose supplementary evidence. After this time period, the OPC can issue the decision. The notification of the statement of objections and issue of the decision can thus only be separated, for example, by a month. Thus, it appears unreasonable and inefficient for the OPC not to be able to take an action during the course of the proceedings to interrupt the limitation period before it has gathered virtually all the necessary documentation and evidence, and once it has gathered that documentation, to be able to take two such actions in very short succession. The above-mentioned facts concerning the current statute of limitations may fundamentally contradict the requirements set by the CJEU for the statute of limitations in the field of competition law as such, according to which, the national rules laying down limitation periods must be devised in such a way as to strike a balance between (…) the objectives of providing legal certainty and ensuring that cases are dealt with within a reasonable time (…) and the effective and efficient application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU ( Whiteland , para 49) as one of the facts that need to be taken into account in order to determine whether a national statute of limitations strikes such balance is “ the specific features of competition law cases and in particular of the fact that those cases require, in principle, a complex factual and economic analysis ” ( Whiteland , para 51). From the description of the Czech legislation regarding the interruption of the limitation period it is thus evident, that this integral part of the Czech statute of limitations with regard to competition law does not take into account the need for a comprehensive factual and economic analysis and extensive and challenging gathering of evidence in the proceedings concerned. The authors also note that under the current legislation the maximum limitation period cannot be subject to interruption and can be only suspended. But as the purpose of the objective limitation period is generally the same as defining the maximum length of the limitation period in Article 25(5) of Regulation 1/2003

301