"In the Orkem-judgment (para. 34) the ECJ stated that the “Commission may not compel an undertaking to provide it with answers which might involve an admission on its part of the existence of an infringement which it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove” The precise distinction between self incriminating questions and lawful questions may sometimes be difficult to draw. However the following indications might be helpful. Whether a question is of a self-incriminating nature or not should be assessed from an objective perspective (average and reasonable respondent) rather than the perspective of the individual addressee (subjective perspective). It is not relevant which information the Commission already has in its possession when asking a question. This approach ensures an objective interpretation of the law, consistent with the principle of legal certainty. It is recommended to assess whether a company can answer a question truthfully without an admission of guilt." © European Commission
Right against self-incrimination
a
Absolute territorial protection
•
Abuse of dominant position
•
Abuse of economic dependence
•
Access to essential facility
•
Access to information
•
Access to the file
•
Advocacy
•
Agency agreement
•
Agent
•
Agreement (notion)
•
Amicus curiae
•
Ancillary restraints
•
Annulment
•
Anticompetitive object or effect
•
Anticompetitive practices
•
Antitrust
•
Applicable law
•
Arbitration
•
Article 11 letter
•
Automotive distribution
b
c
Cartel
•
Civil fine
•
Clearance phase I (merger)
•
Clearance phase II (merger)
•
Collecting society
•
Collective dominance
•
Collective redress (class action)
•
Comity
•
Competence
•
Competition policy
•
Complaint
•
Compliance programme
•
Compulsory license
•
Concerted practices
•
Concession
•
Concurrent jurisdiction
•
Consumers protection
•
Consumers’ associations
•
Contract
•
Control (change)
•
Control (notion)
•
Cooperation Agreement
•
Cooperation between competition authorities
•
Coordinated effects
•
Copyright
•
Corporate group
•
Corruption
•
Cost-based access
•
Criminal sanctions
•
Cross subsidisation
d
e
ECHR
•
Economic analysis
•
Economic efficiency
•
Economies of scale
•
Effect on trade between Member States
•
Effective judicial protection
•
EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) & Court
•
Environmental protection
•
Essential facility
•
European Competition Network (ECN)
•
Excessive prices
•
Exchanges of information
•
Exclusive distribution
•
Exclusive purchasing
•
Exclusive right (Art. 106 TFEU)
•
Exclusivity clause
•
Exhaustion
•
Extra-territoriality
f
i
l
m
p
Parallel imports (parallel trade)
•
Passing-on
•
Pay-for-delay
•
Periodic penalty payment
•
Personal data
•
Potential competition
•
Predatory pricing
•
Preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFUE)
•
Price discrimination
•
Price-fixing agreement
•
Prices
•
Principle of effectiveness
•
Principle of equal treatment
•
Principle of equivalence
•
Principle of proportionality
•
Private enforcement
•
Privatization
•
Procedural autonomy
•
Professional association
•
Public procurement
•
Public undertaking
r
Referral (merger)
•
Refusal to deal
•
Regulated prices
•
Regulation
•
Relevant market
•
Remedies (antitrust)
•
Remedies (antitrust)
•
Request for information
•
Resale price maintenance (RPM)
•
Resale-below-cost
•
Restriction on exportation
•
Right against self-incrimination
•
Rights of defence
•
Rule of reason
s
Sector inquiry
•
Selective distribution
•
Services of general economic interest
•
Single branding
•
Sole control
•
Spill-over effects
•
Standard-Essential Patent (SEP)
•
State action defense
•
State aid (compatibility)
•
State aid (existing aid)
•
State aid (notification)
•
State aid (notion)
•
State aid (recovery)
•
State aid (tax ruling)
•
State aid (unlawful aid)
•
State measure
•
Substitutability
•
Sudden break of established business relationships