iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
An investigation by the European Commission is an inquiry into possible anticompetitive conduct, not a finding that a company has broken the law. Investigators may request information, inspect business premises and records, or take statements. If concerns remain, the Commission may issue a Statement of Objections, giving the parties an opportunity to examine the case and respond before a decision. The case can end in a formal infringement decision, accepted commitments, or closure; there is no single standard timetable for every probe.
What an EU antitrust investigation covers
This process concerns European Commission investigations into possible infringements of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is antitrust enforcement: it is not the separate review of mergers, state aid enforcement, or every procedure that falls under EU competition policy.
Opening a probe means the Commission is examining possible conduct. It does not establish that an infringement occurred, and it does not predetermine the outcome. The investigation, any formal Statement of Objections, and a final decision are different stages. A company may contest the Commission’s preliminary concerns before the Commission decides whether to find an infringement.
How a case reaches the Commission
A case can begin with information from outside the Commission or with the Commission’s own initiative. The possible entry routes differ somewhat between Article 101 and Article 102 cases:
#1 Best Overall
| Possible route | Article 101 | Article 102 |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint | Listed | Listed |
| Leniency application | Listed | Not listed as a route on the Commission’s Article 102 overview |
| Whistleblower report | Listed | Not listed as a route on the Commission’s Article 102 overview |
| Commission’s own initiative (ex officio) | Listed | Listed |
| Sector inquiry | Listed | Listed |
“Ex officio” means the Commission acts on its own initiative. Its leads may come from public information or market monitoring, national or third-country competition authorities, informal complaints, cooperation with other enforcers, or other investigations. A lead can prompt scrutiny without being a conclusive demonstration of unlawful conduct.
These routes describe how a matter can come to the Commission’s attention; they do not mean every report or complaint becomes a formal case. After initial investigative work, the Commission may choose to pursue a case as a priority or close it. The existence of a route to report or raise concerns should therefore not be confused with a prediction that the Commission will adopt a decision.
What the Commission investigates: Article 101 versus Article 102
The legal question depends on the suspected conduct. Article 101 concerns possible anticompetitive agreements or conduct. Article 102 concerns possible abuse of a dominant position. The distinction matters: an Article 102 inquiry does not treat dominance itself as unlawful. The question is whether a dominant undertaking abused that position.
| Issue | Article 101 | Article 102 |
|---|---|---|
| Central question | Whether an agreement or conduct may be anticompetitive | Whether a dominant undertaking may have abused its position |
| Market and conduct analysis identified in the Commission overview | Investigation of possible anticompetitive agreements or conduct | The Commission first defines relevant product and geographic markets and assesses dominance, then examines the alleged conduct |
| Examples identified by the Commission | No specific examples are needed to describe the general route | Exclusive purchasing, predatory pricing, refusal to supply an indispensable input, and excessive prices |
For Article 102, market definition and the conduct assessment are separate analytical steps. The Commission’s examination of relevant product and geographic markets informs whether the undertaking is dominant; it must then consider whether the conduct at issue amounts to abuse. The listed conduct examples are not automatic findings of infringement: the facts and legal assessment in the individual case matter.
What investigators can do after a probe opens
Regulation 1/2003 is the source of the Commission’s investigative powers described in its procedures. Investigative measures can help establish what happened and test the Commission’s concerns against evidence. They are not themselves a decision that the law was broken.
Request information
Under Article 18 of Regulation 1/2003, the Commission can request information. A request is a formal evidence-gathering step, distinct from a final conclusion about liability. The investigation may use information requests alongside other measures to develop the record.
Inspect business premises and records
Under Article 20, the Commission can carry out inspections. The powers identified by the Commission include entering business premises, examining and copying business records, and sealing premises or records. Investigators may ask staff or representatives questions about the purpose and subject matter of an inspection.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →So, yes: the Commission can inspect a company’s business premises as part of an antitrust investigation. The legal basis is Regulation 1/2003, and an inspection is an investigative measure—not a public announcement that an infringement has been proved. The available procedural summaries do not establish a general notice rule, a standard inspection duration, or a universal checklist for how every inspection is carried out; those details should not be assumed from the existence of the power alone.
Take statements
The Commission’s description of ex officio investigations also identifies taking statements under Article 19 of Regulation 1/2003. This is another way investigators can gather material during the inquiry. The measures used will depend on the case; the presence of a particular power in the law does not mean it is used in every investigation.
Know the procedural status of an undertaking under investigation
An undertaking subject to an investigative measure under Chapter V of Regulation 1/2003 has a right to be informed of its procedural status: whether it is under investigation and, if so, the subject matter and purpose. If there is a dispute about whether the undertaking was properly informed, the Hearing Officer can address it. That safeguard concerns procedural information; it does not resolve the merits of the suspected infringement.
What a Statement of Objections means
If an in-depth investigation confirms the Commission’s concerns, the Commission may send the companies concerned a Statement of Objections (SO). The SO sets out the Commission’s competition concerns and is a preliminary procedural step, not the final infringement decision.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Receiving an SO means the Commission has stated its objections and the addressees can exercise rights of defence before the Commission reaches its decision. It does not mean the Commission has already imposed a fine, required a remedy, or made a final finding. The parties can challenge the Commission’s preliminary position through the procedural opportunities available at this stage.
An SO is also not the same thing as public access to the Commission’s case file. The specific file-access right described in the Commission’s procedures applies to parties addressed by the SO and is subject to protections for confidential material.
How parties can examine and answer the case
Parties addressed by an SO are entitled to access the investigative file and to an oral hearing conducted by an independent Hearing Officer. These rights help them understand and respond to the material behind the Commission’s preliminary conclusions. They do not convert the Commission’s preliminary view into a court judgment, nor do they mean the entire file is open to the public.
Access the investigative file
File access lets SO addressees examine evidence relevant to the Commission’s preliminary conclusions. Access is not unlimited: business secrets, other confidential information, and internal Commission documents are subject to protections. A reader should therefore distinguish the parties’ procedural access from public disclosure. The Commission’s described right is for the parties addressed by the Statement of Objections, not for anyone who wants to inspect the full case file.
Rank #4
Use the oral hearing and Hearing Officer safeguards
The oral hearing is conducted by an independent Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer also handles procedural matters, organizes hearings, and safeguards the right to be heard and the parties’ file-access rights. This role addresses procedural safeguards; the Commission remains the body that investigates and adopts an administrative decision.
Together, file access and the hearing provide opportunities for SO addressees to respond before a decision. Their purpose is not to guarantee a particular outcome. The Commission may ultimately find an infringement, accept commitments without making such a finding, or close the case without a final infringement decision.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What can happen after the investigation
The Commission’s procedures describe three broad possibilities: a prohibition decision, a commitment decision, or closure without a final infringement decision. They have materially different legal consequences.
| Outcome | What it means | Does the decision establish an infringement? |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibition decision under Article 7 of Regulation 1/2003 | The Commission formally finds an infringement and can require the parties to stop it, impose remedies, and/or impose a fine. | Yes. It is a formal infringement finding. |
| Commitment decision under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 | Companies may offer commitments to address the Commission’s concerns. If the Commission accepts them, they become binding. | No. Accepting commitments does not establish an infringement. |
| Closure | The Commission may decide not to pursue a case after investigative work. | No final infringement decision is made through that closure. |
Prohibition decision: a formal finding
Under Article 7, the Commission can formally find that an infringement occurred and require the parties to end it. It can also impose remedies and/or a fine. The specific measures depend on the decision; the general procedure does not support predicting a particular fine amount or remedy for a case without a case-specific source.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsThe Commission describes its fining policy as intended to punish and deter and refers to its 2006 Fines Guidelines. That policy reference does not establish a standard fine, a minimum likely amount, or a fine in every case. An investigation may close without a final infringement decision, and outcomes should be described from the actual decision rather than inferred from the fact that a probe opened.
Commitment decision: binding commitments without an infringement finding
Under Article 9, companies may offer commitments intended to address the Commission’s concerns. If the Commission accepts them, those commitments become binding. Acceptance is at the Commission’s discretion, and a commitment decision does not establish that the company infringed competition law.
This outcome differs from a prohibition decision in both what the Commission formally determines and what it requires. A commitment decision makes the accepted promises binding but is not a formal finding of infringement; a prohibition decision formally finds an infringement and may require it to stop, impose remedies, and/or impose a fine.
Closure: no final infringement decision
The Commission may decide to close a case after initial investigative work rather than pursue it as a priority. Closure is a possible procedural outcome, not a finding that every aspect of the conduct was lawful in all contexts. The key point for a reader following a probe is that an opening does not guarantee that the case will end with a prohibition decision or fine.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Can a company challenge the Commission’s decision?
Commission decisions are subject to judicial review under Article 263 TFEU in the EU court system, including the General Court and ultimately the Court of Justice. The institutional roles are distinct: the Commission investigates and adopts the administrative decision; the EU courts review that decision. A judicial challenge is therefore different from the party’s opportunity to respond during the Commission’s investigation and hearing procedures.
How long does an EU competition investigation take?
There is no single general duration established by the Commission’s overview pages for Article 101 and Article 102 investigations. A case’s length cannot be calculated from the fact that it has opened, and the material does not support a standard number of months or years that readers can apply to every probe.
The procedural stages explain why a fixed timeline would be misleading: a matter may involve evidence-gathering, an in-depth investigation, a possible Statement of Objections, file access and a hearing, and then a decision or closure. Not every case follows the same path or reaches each stage. A more precise estimate would require case-specific information that is not supplied by a general description of the Commission’s procedure.
How to follow procedural information
The Commission’s procedures manual is being updated in standalone modules. Its manual index lists modules on decision-making procedures (May 2026), initiation of proceedings (April 2025), and commitment decisions (May 2026). Because modules are updated separately, the index is the appropriate place to check which published module addresses a procedural question and its version date.
Recommended Free Tools
For a company or reader tracking a specific matter, keep the procedural milestones distinct: an inquiry or investigative measure, a Statement of Objections, the parties’ response opportunities, and a final decision or closure are not interchangeable. Only the final disposition establishes whether the Commission formally found an infringement, and a commitment decision is not such a finding.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
