Some of the cases involve companies one might not think to reference as a cartel. In May 2016 the Commission found that Italian abrasives producer Pometon S.p.A. breached EU antitrust rules by participating in a cartel to coordinate steel abrasives prices in Europe for almost four years. The Commission has imposed a fine of 6 197 000.The Commission has found that for almost 4 years, Pometon participated in a cartel and had contacts on a bilateral and multilateral basis to coordinate prices of steel abrasives in the whole European Economic Area (EEA).
The cartel concerned steel abrasives, which are loose steel particles used for cleaning or enhancing metal surfaces in the steel, automotive, metallurgy and petrochemical industries. They are also used for cutting hard stones such as granite and marble.
Metal scrap, which is the main raw material for steel abrasives,
is characterised by sharp price fluctuations as well as
significant price differences between the EEA countries. To
compensate for such fluctuations, the cartel participants set up
together a specific surcharge (called the "scrap surcharge" or
"scrap cost variance (SCV)") based on a common formula. In
addition, the cartelists agreed not to compete against each other
on price with respect to individual customers.
Canned Mushrooms:
In April 2016 The Commission fined Riberebro 5.2 million for
participation in canned mushrooms cartel. The European Commission
found that Spanish canned and fresh vegetable company Riberebro
participated in a cartel to coordinate prices and allocate
customers of canned mushrooms in Europe for more than a year and
has imposed a fine of 5 194 000 on the company. The Commission
adopted a settlement decision in June 2014 concerning the
participation in this same cartel of Bonduelle, Lutà ¨ce and
Prochamp.
Riberebro chose not to settle and consequently the investigation continued under the normal cartel procedure. The cartel concerned canned mushrooms sold in tins and jars (i.e. not fresh or frozen mushrooms) for private label sales in the European Economic Area (EEA). These sales are carried out via tender procedures to retailers and food wholesalers such as cash and carry companies, as well as to professional customers such as catering companies. The overall aim of the cartelists was to stabilise their market shares and stop a decline in prices. To achieve this, the cartel members exchanged confidential information on tenders, set minimum prices, agreed on volume targets and allocated customers among themselves. The cartel was a non-aggression pact with a compensation scheme in case of customer transfer and application of minimum prices which had been agreed beforehand. The Commission found that Riberebro participated in the cartel from 10 September 2010 until 28 February 2012.
Optical Disks
In October 2015 the Commission fined suppliers of optical disc drives 116 million for cartel collusion. It fined eight optical disc drive suppliers a total of 116 million for having coordinated their behaviour in relation to procurement tenders organised by two computer manufacturers, in breach of EU antitrust rules.
Optical disc drives ("ODDs") read or record data stored on optical disks, such as CDs, DVDs or Blu-ray. They are used for instance in personal computers, CD and DVD players and video game consoles. The anticompetitive conduct subject to fines in this case concerns agreements to collude in procurement tenders for ODDs for laptops and desktops produced by Dell and Hewlett Packard (HP).
The eight suppliers engaged in the illegal practices covered by this decision, were Philips, Late-On, their joint venture Philips & Late-On Digital Solutions, Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology, Sony, Sony Optic and Quanta Storage.
The Commission's investigation revealed that between June 2004 and November 2008, the companies participating in the cartel communicated to each other their intentions regarding bidding strategies, shared the results of procurement tenders and exchanged other commercially sensitive information concerning ODDs used in laptops and desktops. They organised a network of parallel bilateral contacts that pursued a single plan to avoid aggressive competition in procurement tenders organised by Dell and HP.
Although the cartel contacts took place outside of the European Economic Area (EEA), they were implemented on a worldwide basis. Of the companies involved in the cartel, only Philips is headquartered in Europe. The remaining seven are headquartered in Asia. The duration of each company's involvement in the cartel varied and ranged from less than a year to over four years.
The companies were aware that their behaviour was illegal and tried to conceal their contacts and to evade detection of their arrangements. For example, they avoided naming the competitors concerned in their internal correspondence but used abbreviations or generic names.
The cartelists also avoided leaving traces of anticompetitive arrangements by preferring face-to-face meetings and ensured that the competitors' discussions were not revealed to customers. Some of them met in places where they could not be easily spotted, including in parking lots or cinemas.
Cargo Trains
In July 2015 the European Commission imposed fines of 49 154 000 on Express Interfracht, part of the Austrian railway incumbent sterreichische Bundesbahnen ("BB"), and Schenker, part of the German railway incumbent Deutsche Bahn ("DB"), for operating a cartel in breach of EU antitrust rules in the market for so-called cargo 'blocktrain' services. The three companies fixed prices and allocated customers for their "Balkantrain" and "Soptrain" services in Europe for nearly eight years.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
