The document summarizes several cartel enforcement cases focusing on procedural issues in proving participation in cartels and reducing fines due to procedural breaches: 1) Cases involving grocery store chains in Latvia where the competition council found clear object cases of market allocation but the Senate decision found they were generally effects cases. 2) The Pfeiderer case where the ECJ ruled national courts can assess whether disclosure of leniency applications is necessary for claimants to obtain damages for cartel harms. 3) Several cases where the General Court reduced fines or found the European Commission failed to prove cartel participation due to insufficient, unreliable, or conflicting evidence.

1. Cartel enforcement:
focus on procedure
Jūlija Jerņeva
Riga, Hotel Bergs, 25 May 2012

2. Presentation plan
1. Object or effect? The eternal
question
2. Procedural issues:
• Proof of participation in a cartel
• Reduction of fines and consequences
of procedural breaches
2

3. Rimi, Maxima, Iki cases (1)
• Case E02-7, Maxima; Case E02-18, Iki; Case E02-20, Rimi
• Rent agreements with shopping centers:
• Prior consent required to allow new tenants, engaged in groceries retail
• Mostly anchor tenants
• CC: clear object case
3

4. Object or effect?
4
Timeline
Conclusion
of the
agreement
If object case:
•Automatic breach
•No need to wait for
the effect
If effects case:
•No need to wait for
the effect, BUT
requirement to prove
it

5. Rimi, Maxima, Iki cases (2)
• The “famous” decision of the Senate
• OFT “Guideline on the application of competition law to land
agreements”, OFT1280a, March 2011
• Generally effects cases
• Object case: both parties are competitors and the object of the agreement is
the geographic allocation of the markets or division of customers
• Uniform application of Art 101 in the EU?
5

6. Pfeiderer
• Case 360/09
• Access to leniency submissions in the context of follow-up damages claims
• German decor paper cartel case (Pfeiderer – the customer of the cartel
participants)
• The decision on fine: identifying information removed
• German court of first instance decides to grant the access to file, but decision
objected
• Reference to ECJ: may a party, adversely affected by a cartel be given access to
leniency applications for the purpose of bringing civil law claims?
• ECJ: the EU law does not preclude such an access (absence of binding rules re
national procedure), but it is for national courts to assess whether such
disclosure is necessary and proportionate to protect a claimant’s right to
damages
• AG Mazak opinion in Switchgear case:, 16.12.2010, paras 40-47
6

7. Gas Insulated Switchgear (1)
• Case T-110/07, Siemens; Cases T-117/07 and T 121/07, Areva and others;
Joined cases T-122/07 to 124/07, Siemens AG Osterreich and others
• Reduction of fine by 35% and 20% to Areva group companies (Siemens
was cartel leader for almost 11,5 years, but Areva for only about 5
years; no basis for the increase as a leader)
• EC failed to prove participation in the cartel by Siemens and VATech
group between April and June 2002
• Liability for the subsidiary by the new owner only if:
• The infringement continues and the responsibility of the new parent company
can be established
7

8. Gas Insulated Switchgear (2)
• Case T-112/07, Hitachi and others; Case T-113/07, Toshiba; Case T-132/07,
Fuji Electric; Case T-133/07, Mitsubishi
• Fuji Electric sought to rely on new evidence before the court
• ECJ:
• Fuji Electric could do so, since that was a necessary right for the defence
• The defence is not required to offer during the administrative proceedings all
the material on which it may wish to rely on appeal
8

9. Fittings Cartel
• Ten judgments, see Court Press Release 24/11, 24 March 2011
• EC relied on a meeting between IBP and Simplex in March 2004, but
the GC compared the statements and concluded those were
conflicting, there was not enough evidence to find an infringement
• GC: not clear that Aquatis knew, or must have known when it
attended some French industry association meetings and had other
contacts with competitors that it was “joining the circle of
participants in the pan-European cartel”. Even previous participation
not sufficient to prove that Aquatis rejoined the cartel
9

10. Dutch Beer
• Case T-240/07, Heineken; Case T-235/07, Bavaria
• The EC evidence as regards “occasional coordination of other terms”,
where the Court found the evidence put forward as fragmented,
imprecise and insufficient
• The investigation lasted 65 between first inspections and the SO and
20 months between the SO and the final decision: too long, fine
reduction by EUR 100’000 by the EC. The Court: reduction must be
5%
10

11. Sodium Chlorate
• Cases T-199/08, Elf Aquitane and T-343/08, Arkema France
• The evidence, relied upon by the EC was unreliable, excessively
sporadic and fragmented
• The EC failed to show to the requisite standard that Aragonesas
participated from December 1996 to February 2000
• Extensive analyses of the evidentiary rules
11

12. Synthetic Rubber
• Cases T-38/07, 39/07, 42/07, 45/07, 53/07 and 59/07
• Unipetrol: Contradictions as to the dates of alleged meetings
• Dow:
• its’ employee was seconded from a cartel member and during that time first
attended the meeting
• Court: the EC failed to prove if the employee in question was representing
Dow or BSL (Dow’s supplier).
• Thus the starting date of participation in the cartel was moved from July
1996 to September 1996
12

13. International Removals
• Five judgments, see Court Press Release 63/11, 16 June 2011
• Gosselin: the EC had not shown that it had infringed between
October 1993 and November 1996.
• EC had no documents proving Gosselin’s infringement in this period
• EC: Gosselin had not definitely ended participation, had not “publicly
distanced itself” from the cartel
• Court: the obligation to publicly distance does not apply, since there
were no multilateral meetings (participation in which might give an
impression to the others that the company is willing to agree)
• The fact that Gosselin had participated in the cartel before and after
is not enough (cartel meetings were 3 times a year, but no proof of
Gosselin participation for 3 years)
13

14. Terra Serviss
• Latvian Competition Council Case E02-70, Preiss Agro and Terra Serviss
• Preiss Agro – the only official distributor of the NewHollad goods
(wholesales and retail). Terra Serviss – the retail level distributor only
• Cooperation agreement:
• Common trade mark
• Joint distribution of agricultural machinery spare parts
• Joint warranty repair and other services provision
• Obligation to buy the agricultural machinery from each other
• All service fees agreed in the agreement
• Full disclosure of price, assortment information
• Geographic market allocation
14

15. 15

16. Thank you!
Jūlija Jerņeva
Mob: +371 29131597
https://www.linkedin.com/in/julijajerneva