In a Supplementary Response to a Statement of Objections issued by the Commission in December, Microsoft also accused the Commission of withholding documents and colluding with its competitors.
The Commission delayed until two days before Microsoft was due to respond to the Statement before providing the firm with letters and emails between the Commission and Trustee, and the Commission and rivals, said the software giant.
These documents showed that there had been “inappropriate contacts” between the parties, calling into question the independence of the Trustee and violating principles of due process, Microsoft alleged.
“The Commission collaborated with Microsoft’s adversaries to undermine the transparency of the monitoring process and to circumvent the principle of equality of arms. The Commission not only failed to provide relevant communications with third parties to Microsoft, but it sought to create the impression that such materials did not exist,” it said in the Response.
“The Commission and the Trustee cannot fulfil their respective roles as neutral regulator and independent monitor if they are actively and secretly working with Microsoft’s adversaries,” it added.
The European Commission has made no response to the allegations other than to confirm that Microsoft will be appearing at a previously arranged hearing at the end of March to put forward its oral response to the Statement of Objections.
This was issued in December, obliging Microsoft to provide evidence that it was complying with an antitrust ruling, or face daily fines of up to €2 million.
Professor Neil Barrett, the Monitoring Trustee appointed by the Commission (from a panel suggested by Microsoft) to assess the completeness and accuracy of technical documentation provided by Microsoft, had advised the Commission that the information provided by the company was not sufficient to show compliance with the interoperability requirements of the ruling.
That ruling, from March 2004, found that Microsoft broke competition law by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players.
The Commission imposed a fine, ordered Microsoft to offer an alternative stripped-down version of Windows, and ordered the firm to publish some of its interfaces, so that competitors could make their products interoperable with Windows.
Microsoft has paid the fine and produced the alternative Windows version, but has been slow to produce what the Commission sees as adequate interoperability information.
Microsoft’s appeal of the ruling is due to come before the European Court of First Instance in April.
