This article proposes changes to the role of the EU hearing officer and looks, as a starting point, to the US administrative model, in particular the role of the Administrative Law Judge. It is argued that the US model makes better use of its hearing examiners to understand and probe contested points of fact or law. The article sets out a proposal for strengthening the function and responsibilities of the EU hearing officer to also include a review of substantive points of the case. The hearing officer’s substantive findings, in addition to reporting on procedure, would be included in a final public report. These relatively modest changes would provide comfort to the parties that some independent scrutiny of disputed facts had taken place whilst the Commission would retain full discretion as to the ultimate decision. However, importantly, the Commission’s decision-making would be aided by a more robust oral hearing. No fundamental changes to the EU’s administrative model would be required for the implementation of this proposal. For practical reasons it is suggested to trial this proposal first in the Commission’s Article 101 and 102 TFEU investigations.

中文翻译：

---

听证官的更大作用：适度的提议

本文提议改变欧盟听证官的角色，并以美国行政模式，尤其是行政法法官的角色作为起点。有人认为，美国模式更好地利用其听证官来理解和探讨有争议的事实或法律问题。文章提出了一项加强欧盟听证官职能和责任的提案，其中还包括对案件实质要点的审查。除了程序报告之外，听证官的实质性调查结果将包含在最终公开报告中。这些相对温和的变化会让当事人感到欣慰，因为已经对有争议的事实进行了一些独立审查，同时委员会将保留对最终决定的完全自由裁量权。然而，重要的是，更有力的口头听证会有助于委员会的决策。实施该提案不需要对欧盟的行政模式进行根本性的改变。出于实际原因，建议首先在委员会的第 101 条和第 102 条 TFEU 调查中试用该提案。