In line with other jurisdictions, the Commission does not issue annual statistics on leniency matters, nor does it issue figures on markers or on some other issues raised by the Honourable Member in her questions as indicated below.

The Commission has found that it is not straightforward to determine from the outset of each application when it is to be ultimately considered as an immunity application or as a reduction of fines application. Over time as the case advances, the classification of applications may change. In practice, companies normally make leniency applications both for immunity from fines and, in the alternative, for reduction of fines. Where several immunity applications have been received for the same alleged infringement, the first successful application is ultimately counted as an immunity application and the subsequent ones as applications for a reduction of fines, unless the first application for immunity is rejected, in which case then the second application will be considered as an immunity application. Therefore the Commission publishes information only on the accumulated number of immunity and reduction of fines applications received under the respective Notices.

Regarding the number of applications received, the Commission currently counts that under the 2006 Leniency Notice it received 50 applications for immunity and 30 applications for a reduction of fines from its entry into force on 8 December 2006 to the end of 2008.

Under the 2002 Leniency Notice the Commission received 107 applications for immunity and 116 applications for reduction of fines from entry into force of the Notice on 14 February 2002 until the end of 2008. It should be recalled that if, before entry into force of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission received an application for immunity under the 2002 Leniency Notice in a case, all subsequent applications for leniency in that case were to be treated under the 2002 Notice.

Under the 1996 Notice the Commission received 188 applications for non-imposition or reduction of fines.

As to the question of the Honourable Member on how many cases was conditional immunity granted by the Commission, under the 2002 Notice the Commission granted conditional immunity on 58 applications. Under the 1996 Notice the Commission decided either not to impose fines or to grant a very substantial reduction (from 75 % to 100 %) or a significant reduction (50 % to 75 %) in 17 cases. Currently when applications for immunity are received those are made under the 2006 Notice and it is still too early to count the conditional immunity decisions under that Notice.

Conditional immunity was only withdrawn in one case under the 2002 Leniency Notice and there are no withdrawals under the 2006 Leniency Notice. The prohibition decision taken on 20 October 2005 in a case concerning the raw tobacco sector (see also press release IP/05/1315) withholds immunity due to a serious breach by the immunity applicant of its cooperation obligation under the 2002 Notice.

While no year by year statistics are issued, regarding the Honourable Member’s question on the first band of reduction of fines (i.e. 30-50 % reduction), so far in almost all cases under the 2002 Leniency Notice such a reduction was granted which amounts to approximately 20 cases. There are only three cases so far where, after immunity, no reduction of fines was granted: Gas Insulated Switchgear, Aluminium fluoride and Bananas. As for the 2006 Leniency Notice, so far one case — the Marine hose cartel — has been brought to a final decision. In that case the second company to cooperate with the Commission received a 30 % reduction within the first band of reductions of fines.

As for the 10 % reduction under the second paragraph of section D.2 of the 1996 Notice for not substantially contesting the facts, the Commission does not issue such statistics but estimates that such a reduction was granted in half of the 188 applications received.

There is no reduction between 50 % and the 100 % full immunity, either under the 2002 or 2006 Leniency Notice.

In the period from 2002 to the end of 2008, the Commission adopted statements of objections in 52 cartel investigations. 46 of these investigations started on the basis of information received under the 1996, 2002 or 2006 Leniency Notice.

The period from a formal opening of proceedings (proceedings are usually formally opened when the Commission issues a statement of objections) until the decision, has been 13 months on average. Taking as starting point the moment when the Commission carries out dawn raids, the average duration of the case from that moment to the adoption of a decision has been 3-4 years. On average it takes some 3 months from an immunity application to a dawn raid.

Up to the end of 2008, applications were received under the 2002 and 2006 Notices from 26 different countries. The majority of requests came from 15 EU Member States, of which 2 were new Member States that joined in 2004.

Approximately 80 % of the applications received under the 2002 and 2006 Notices concerned manufacturing industry, 15 % services, and the rest agricultural products. In this respect the Commission does not make any distinction as to what is the origin of the case, be it a leniency application, complaint, market monitoring and/or information received from informants or other competition authorities.

Following the entry into force of Regulation 1/2003, with the parallel application of the EU competition rules by the Commission and the National Competition Authorities (NCAs), in the case of around 20 applications received by the Commission, the NCAs have pursued or are pursuing the case instead of the Commission. In some cases the Commission has received an application which it has found to involve several parallel but distinct national cartels, following which the case has been taken up by several NCAs who have pursued the cartels that concern their respective countries.

Of the cases where the Commission adopted a prohibition decision in the period from 2002 to the end of 2008, a leniency application was made in parallel with the US Corporate Leniency Programme, to the Commission's knowledge, in relation to 10-15 cartel investigations.

Concerning international cartels, leniency applicants have often made parallel applications to the competition authorities of some or all of the following countries among others (in addition to the USA): Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Brazil and Switzerland.

In cases where the Commission has decided not to follow an immunity application with a cartel investigation, the reason is usually that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence and information to qualify for conditional immunity.

In response to the Honourable Member’s question on how many cases the Commission is aware of where it has received a leniency application and an NCA has investigated the same matter in respect of the period prior to that Member State’s accession, to the Commission's knowledge this has occurred in around half a dozen cases. However, the real number of such cases, dealt with by an NCA under national competition rules, will only be known when the NCA issues a final decision in a case and informs the public of this.