# C_2012162EN.01000501.xml

| 8.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/5

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

1

COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate

2012/C 162/06

| (1) | On 11 June 2008, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Decision’) (2), imposing a fine of amongst others EUR 9,9 million severally and jointly on Aragonesas and Uralita for their involvement from 16 December 1996 until 9 February 2000 in agreements and concerted practices in the market for sodium chlorate in the EEA. On 16 September 2008, Uralita provisionally paid the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 11 June 2008, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (the ‘Decision’) (2), imposing a fine of amongst others EUR 9,9 million severally and jointly on Aragonesas and Uralita for their involvement from 16 December 1996 until 9 February 2000 in agreements and concerted practices in the market for sodium chlorate in the EEA. On 16 September 2008, Uralita provisionally paid the fine.

2

| (2) | By judgment of 25 October 2011 in case T-348/08 Aragonesas v. Commission
   (3), the General Court found that Aragonesas had participated in the infringement only for the period from 28 January 1998 until 31 December 1998 and annulled in its entirety the fine imposed in the Decision. By judgment of 25 October 2011 in case T-349/08 Uralita v. Commission
   (4), the General Court dismissed the appeal brought by Uralita, thus leaving in place the fine of EUR 9,9 million. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By judgment of 25 October 2011 in case T-348/08 Aragonesas v. Commission
   (3), the General Court found that Aragonesas had participated in the infringement only for the period from 28 January 1998 until 31 December 1998 and annulled in its entirety the fine imposed in the Decision. By judgment of 25 October 2011 in case T-349/08 Uralita v. Commission
   (4), the General Court dismissed the appeal brought by Uralita, thus leaving in place the fine of EUR 9,9 million.

Aragonesas

Commission

3

Uralita

Commission

4

| (3) | On 5 December 2011, the Commission informed Uralita and Aragonesas of its intention to re-impose a fine on Aragonesas calculated in accordance with the shorter duration established by the Court in case T-348/08, and to reduce the duration of Uralita's liability to that of Aragonesas. On 12 December 2011, the Commission learned for the first time that Aragonesas, which had been sold by Uralita to Ercros SA (‘Ercros’) in 2005, had ceased to exist as from 31 May 2010, following its merger with Ercros. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 5 December 2011, the Commission informed Uralita and Aragonesas of its intention to re-impose a fine on Aragonesas calculated in accordance with the shorter duration established by the Court in case T-348/08, and to reduce the duration of Uralita's liability to that of Aragonesas. On 12 December 2011, the Commission learned for the first time that Aragonesas, which had been sold by Uralita to Ercros SA (‘Ercros’) in 2005, had ceased to exist as from 31 May 2010, following its merger with Ercros.

| (4) | On 23 January 2012, Uralita informed the Commission that [confidential]. Therefore, Uralita declared [that it unreservedly accepted its responsibility for the infringement from 28 January 1998 until 31 December 1998 as regards the Commission procedure in case 38.695 — Sodium Chlorate and that it may be the sole addressee of any amendment decision in that procedure]. On 25 January 2012, the Commission informed Uralita of its intention to adopt an amendment decision only with respect to Uralita, and granted the undertaking until 8 February 2012 to make known its views. On 26 January 2012, Uralita informed the Commission that it had no further observations. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 23 January 2012, Uralita informed the Commission that [confidential]. Therefore, Uralita declared [that it unreservedly accepted its responsibility for the infringement from 28 January 1998 until 31 December 1998 as regards the Commission procedure in case 38.695 — Sodium Chlorate and that it may be the sole addressee of any amendment decision in that procedure]. On 25 January 2012, the Commission informed Uralita of its intention to adopt an amendment decision only with respect to Uralita, and granted the undertaking until 8 February 2012 to make known its views. On 26 January 2012, Uralita informed the Commission that it had no further observations.

[confidential]

[that it unreservedly accepted its responsibility for the infringement from 28 January 1998 until 31 December 1998 as regards the Commission procedure in case 38.695 — Sodium Chlorate and that it may be the sole addressee of any amendment decision in that procedure].

| (5) | In its draft amendment decision addressed to Uralita, the Commission: (i) reduces the period of participation in the infringement to the period of 28 January 1998 until 31 December 1998; (ii) sets the fine under Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, for which Uralita is solely liable, according to the same parameters used in the Decision, except for the duration multiplier which is set at 0,91 to reflect the reduced infringement period. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

In its draft amendment decision addressed to Uralita, the Commission: (i) reduces the period of participation in the infringement to the period of 28 January 1998 until 31 December 1998; (ii) sets the fine under Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, for which Uralita is solely liable, according to the same parameters used in the Decision, except for the duration multiplier which is set at 0,91 to reflect the reduced infringement period.

| (6) | The draft decision does not contain any objections in respect of which the parties have not been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. Moreover, in the course of this procedure I did not receive any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings. In view thereof, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants in this case has been respected. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The draft decision does not contain any objections in respect of which the parties have not been afforded the opportunity of making known their views. Moreover, in the course of this procedure I did not receive any request or complaint from any party to the proceedings. In view thereof, I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all participants in this case has been respected.

Brussels, 12 March 2012.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Commission Decision of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate, C(2008) 2626 final.

2

(3)  Case T-348/08, Aragonesas Industrias y Energia SAU v. European Commission, [2011] ECR (not yet reported).

3

Aragonesas Industrias y Energia SAU

European Commission

(4)  Case T-349/08, Uralita, SA v European Commission, [2011] ECR (not yet reported).

4

Uralita, SA

European Commission

---