Introduction The CAT found that there was there was insufficient evidence to support a number of the conclusions reached by the OFT in its Decision against Tesco. None of the five Strands of the 2003 Cheese Initiative, as found in the Decision, were proved. The OFT decision was found to be unsatisfactory largely due to inadmissibility of oral evidence of witnesses who executed those documents and its reliance on paper evidence. The court mentions Article 6(2) the ECHR and although it does not link this issue directly to the lack of oral defence and cross-examination. This link is well established (for example in relation to the invitation to submit common oral defence: Case C-238/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and others (PVC II) v Commission[2002] ECR I-8375, para 345; the
Share on
|
|
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal partly quashes the OFT decision against the largest UK retailer (Tesco)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
