Leniency for Subsequent Applicants 2012 The OECD Competition Committee debated “Leniency for Subsequent Applicants” in October 2012. This document includes an executive summary of that debate and the documents from the meeting: an issues paper by the OECD Secretariat and written submissions from: Australia, Estonia, the European Union, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and BIAC, as well as a summary of the discussion. Competition authorities widely rely on leniency policies to detect, investigate and prosecute hard-core cartels. Jurisdictions that operate leniency programmes recognize the benefits of rewarding not only the first-in applicant who denounces the cartel but also subsequent applicants who provide useful corroboration or new evidence. Subsequent applicants can often supply essential co-operation for the successful prosecution of the full extent of a cartel and offer a cost-efficient way for gathering evidence. In order to obtain a leniency reward, subsequent applicants must fulfil a number of requirements, which generally mirror those for immunity applicants. These include qualification, co-operation and timing requirements, which vary in substance across jurisdictions. However, in the majority of jurisdictions, subsequent applicants are required to provide full and continuous co-operation throughout the procedure while ending their participation in the cartel and maintaining the fact of their co-operation confidential. Hard Core Cartels: Third Report on the Implementation of the 1998 Recommendation (2005) Cartels Sanctions against Individuals (2003) Fighting Hard Core Cartels: Harm, Effective Sanctions and Leniency Programmes (2002) Hard Core Cartels (2000) Recommendation of the Council concerning Effective Action against Hard Core Cartels (1998) Unclassified DAF/COMP(2012)25 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English, French DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE Unclassified DAF/COMP(2012)25 LENIENCY FOR SUBSEQUENT APPLICANTS English, French Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. DAF/COMP(2012)25 FOREWORD This document comprises proceedings in the original languages of a Roundtable on Leniency for Subsequent Applicants held by the Competition Committee (Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement) in October 2012. It is published under the responsibility of the Secretary General of the OECD to bring information on this topic to the attention of a wider audience. This compilation is one of a series of publications entitled "Competition Policy Roundtables". PRÉFACE Ce document rassemble la documentation dans la langue d'origine dans laquelle elle a été soumise, relative à la table ronde sur l’application des programmes de clémence aux demanderus suivants qui s'est tenue en octobre 2012 dans le cadre du Comité de la concurrence (Groupe de Travail No. 3 sur la coopération et l’application de la loi). Il est publié sous la responsabilité du Secrétaire général de l'OCDE, afin de porter à la connaissance d'un large public les éléments d'information qui ont été réunis à cette occasion. Cette compilation fait partie de la série intitulée "Les tables rondes sur la politique de la concurrence". Visit our Internet Site -- Consultez notre site Internet http://www.oecd.org/competition/ 2 DAF/COMP(2012)25 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 5 ISSUES PAPER .............................................................................................................................................. 9 CONTRIBUTIONS BY DELEGATIONS Australia ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Estonia ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 European Union ........................................................................................................................................ 29 France (version française) ........................................................................................................................ 35 France (English version) .......................................................................................................................... 47 Germany ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Hungary .................................................................................................................................................... 65 Italy........................................................................................................................................................... 71 Japan ......................................................................................................................................................... 75 Korea ........................................................................................................................................................ 85 Latvia ........................................................................................................................................................ 91 Lithuania ................................................................................................................................................... 95 Mexico .................................................................................................................................................... 101 Poland ..................................................................................................................................................... 105 Romania ................................................................................................................................................. 113 Russian Federation ................................................................................................................................. 121 South Africa ........................................................................................................................................... 129 Spain ....................................................................................................................................................... 133 Switzerland ............................................................................................................................................. 139 Chinese Taipei ........................................................................................................................................ 143 Ukraine ................................................................................................................................................... 149 United States .......................................................................................................................................... 151 BIAC ...................................................................................................................................................... 159 OTHER REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 165 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 167 *** SYNTHÈSE ................................................................................................................................................. 179 DOCUMENT DE RÉFLEXION ................................................................................................................. 183 COMPTE RENDU DE LA DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 195 3 DAF/COMP(2012)25 4 DAF/COMP(2012)25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By the Secretariat From the background paper, the country contributions and the discussion at the roundtable on leniency for subsequent applicants, the following points emerge: (1) Competition authorities widely rely on leniency policies to detect, investigate and prosecute hard-core cartels. Jurisdictions that operate leniency programmes recognize the benefits of rewarding not only the first-in applicant who denounces the cartel but also subsequent applicants who provide useful corroboration or new evidence. Subsequent applicants can often supply essential co-operation for the successful prosecution of the full extent of a cartel and offer a cost- efficient way for gathering evidence. Leniency programmes have proven very successful for competition authorities in detecting, investigating and prosecuting hard-core cartels and, as a result, have been adopted in a large number of jurisdictions around the