# C_2015351EN.01000501.xml

| 23.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/5

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 15 July 2015

(Case AT.40098 — Blocktrains)

(notified under document C(2015) 4646)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2015/C 351/06)

On 15 July 2015, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
   (1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

On 15 July 2015, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003

1

the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The Decision relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty. The Decision is addressed to the following entities: Kühne + Nagel International AG and Kuehne + Nagel A.E. (collectively referred to as ‘K+N’); ÖBB-Holding AG, Rail Cargo Austria AG, Rail Cargo Logistics — Austria GmbH (2) and Express Interfracht Hellas A.E. (3) (collectively referred to as ‘EXIF’); Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker & Co. AG and Schenker A.E. (collectively referred to as ‘Schenker’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty. The Decision is addressed to the following entities: Kühne + Nagel International AG and Kuehne + Nagel A.E. (collectively referred to as ‘K+N’); ÖBB-Holding AG, Rail Cargo Austria AG, Rail Cargo Logistics — Austria GmbH (2) and Express Interfracht Hellas A.E. (3) (collectively referred to as ‘EXIF’); Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker & Co. AG and Schenker A.E. (collectively referred to as ‘Schenker’).

2

3

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

Procedure

| (2) | Following an immunity application by K+N, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of Schenker and EXIF in Greece and Austria in June 2013. On 23 August 2013, EXIF submitted a leniency application and on 17 September 2013, Schenker submitted a leniency application. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following an immunity application by K+N, the Commission carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of Schenker and EXIF in Greece and Austria in June 2013. On 23 August 2013, EXIF submitted a leniency application and on 17 September 2013, Schenker submitted a leniency application.

Schenker

EXIF

EXIF

Schenker

| (3) | On 10 June 2014, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 against the addressees of this Decision with a view to engaging in settlement discussions with them under the Settlement Notice (4). Settlement meetings with the parties took place between 23 July 2014 and 25 March 2015 and each party then submitted its formal request to settle pursuant to Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (5). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 10 June 2014, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 against the addressees of this Decision with a view to engaging in settlement discussions with them under the Settlement Notice (4). Settlement meetings with the parties took place between 23 July 2014 and 25 March 2015 and each party then submitted its formal request to settle pursuant to Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (5).

4

5

| (4) | On 26 May 2015, the Commission adopted a statement of objections addressed to the parties. All parties replied to the statement of objections by confirming that it reflected the contents of their settlement submissions and that they remained committed to following the settlement procedure. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 13 July 2015 and the Commission adopted the Decision on 15 July 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 26 May 2015, the Commission adopted a statement of objections addressed to the parties. All parties replied to the statement of objections by confirming that it reflected the contents of their settlement submissions and that they remained committed to following the settlement procedure. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 13 July 2015 and the Commission adopted the Decision on 15 July 2015.

2.2.   Addressees and duration

Addressees and duration

| (5) | The addressees of the Decision have participated in a cartel and/or bear liability for it, infringing therefore Article 101 of the Treaty, during the periods indicated below:






  Entity | Duration |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kühne + Nagel International AG Kuehne + Nagel A.E. | 2 July 2004-30 June 2012 |
| ÖBB-Holding AG
  Rail Cargo Austria AG
  Rail Cargo Logistics — Austria GmbH
  Express Interfracht Hellas A.E. | 2 July 2004-30 June 2012 |
| Deutsche Bahn AG Schenker AG Schenker & Co. AG Schenker A.E. | 2 July 2004-30 June 2012 |

(5)

The addressees of the Decision have participated in a cartel and/or bear liability for it, infringing therefore Article 101 of the Treaty, during the periods indicated below:

Entity

Duration

Kühne + Nagel International AG Kuehne + Nagel A.E.

2 July 2004-30 June 2012

ÖBB-Holding AG

Rail Cargo Austria AG

Rail Cargo Logistics — Austria GmbH

Express Interfracht Hellas A.E.

2 July 2004-30 June 2012

Deutsche Bahn AG Schenker AG Schenker & Co. AG Schenker A.E.

2 July 2004-30 June 2012

2.3.   Summary of the infringement

Summary of the infringement

| (6) | The Decision concerns a cartel relating to the provision of rail cargo transport services in connection with blocktrains (6) between Central and South-Eastern Europe (‘Balkantrain’ and ‘Soptrain’), operated jointly by the three undertakings subject to these proceedings (7). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The Decision concerns a cartel relating to the provision of rail cargo transport services in connection with blocktrains (6) between Central and South-Eastern Europe (‘Balkantrain’ and ‘Soptrain’), operated jointly by the three undertakings subject to these proceedings (7).

6

7

| (7) | The parties operated a cartel with the overall aim to allocate and protect (that is, reserve) certain customers or transport volumes and to coordinate prices. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The parties operated a cartel with the overall aim to allocate and protect (that is, reserve) certain customers or transport volumes and to coordinate prices.

| (8) | The cartel was implemented by way of detailed coordination arrangements allowing close monitoring of the agreed customer protection scheme. To achieve this aim the cartel members (i) allocated existing and new customers, (ii) set up a customer protection scheme, including a notification system for new customers, (iii) exchanged confidential information on specific customer requests, (iv) shared transport volumes between them and (v) coordinated prices directly by providing each other with cover bids and discussing prices for specific customers. The cartel members also held trilateral and bilateral meetings and had other contacts by e-mail or phone. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The cartel was implemented by way of detailed coordination arrangements allowing close monitoring of the agreed customer protection scheme. To achieve this aim the cartel members (i) allocated existing and new customers, (ii) set up a customer protection scheme, including a notification system for new customers, (iii) exchanged confidential information on specific customer requests, (iv) shared transport volumes between them and (v) coordinated prices directly by providing each other with cover bids and discussing prices for specific customers. The cartel members also held trilateral and bilateral meetings and had other contacts by e-mail or phone.

| (9) | The cartel started on 2 July 2004 and lasted until 30 June 2012. The geographic scope of the infringement involving all three parties was Union-wide for its entire duration. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The cartel started on 2 July 2004 and lasted until 30 June 2012. The geographic scope of the infringement involving all three parties was Union-wide for its entire duration.

2.4.   Remedies

Remedies

| (10) | The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (8). With the exception of K+N, the Decision imposes fines on all the entities listed under point (5) above. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (8). With the exception of K+N, the Decision imposes fines on all the entities listed under point (5) above.

8

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

Basic amount of the fine

| (11) | In setting the fines, the Commission took into account the undertakings' sales of rail cargo transport services in connection with blocktrains between Central and South-Eastern Europe and operated jointly by K+N, EXIF and Schenker (Balkantrain and Soptrain), including ancillary transport services. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

In setting the fines, the Commission took into account the undertakings' sales of rail cargo transport services in connection with blocktrains between Central and South-Eastern Europe and operated jointly by K+N, EXIF and Schenker (Balkantrain and Soptrain), including ancillary transport services.

K+N, EXIF

Schenker

| (12) | In this case, the value of sales was clearly not constant over the entire period of the infringement. Based on that and on the information provided by the parties in this respect, an average of each party's relevant sales during the entire infringement period was used, to adequately reflect the considerable volatility of sales during that period and, hence, to take account of the scale of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In this case, the value of sales was clearly not constant over the entire period of the infringement. Based on that and on the information provided by the parties in this respect, an average of each party's relevant sales during the entire infringement period was used, to adequately reflect the considerable volatility of sales during that period and, hence, to take account of the scale of the infringement.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

Adjustments to the basic amount

| (13) | The Commission did not apply any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The Commission did not apply any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

| (14) | The Commission applied a deterrence multiplier to Schenker to take account of the comparatively large size of that undertaking (DB group). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Commission applied a deterrence multiplier to Schenker to take account of the comparatively large size of that undertaking (DB group).

Schenker

2.4.3.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| (15) | In this case, none of the fines calculated exceed 10 % of the respective undertaking's total turnover in 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In this case, none of the fines calculated exceed 10 % of the respective undertaking's total turnover in 2014.

2.4.4.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice: reduction of fines

Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice: reduction of fines

| (16) | The Commission granted K+N full immunity from fines. EXIF was granted a 45 % reduction of its fine, and Schenker a 30 % reduction of its fine. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Commission granted K+N full immunity from fines. EXIF was granted a 45 % reduction of its fine, and Schenker a 30 % reduction of its fine.

EXIF

Schenker a

2.4.5.   Application of the Settlement Notice

Application of the Settlement Notice

| (17) | As a result of the application of the Settlement Notice, the amount of the fines imposed on the addressees was reduced by 10 %. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

As a result of the application of the Settlement Notice, the amount of the fines imposed on the addressees was reduced by 10 %.

3.   CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

| (18) | The following fines were imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003:






  (a) | Kühne + Nagel International AG and Kuehne + Nagel A.E., jointly and severally: EUR 0; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(18)

The following fines were imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003:

(a)

Kühne + Nagel International AG and Kuehne + Nagel A.E., jointly and severally: EUR 0;

| (b) | ÖBB-Holding AG, Rail Cargo Austria AG, Rail Cargo Logistics — Austria GmbH and Express Interfracht Hellas A.E., jointly and severally: EUR 17 356 000; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ÖBB-Holding AG, Rail Cargo Austria AG, Rail Cargo Logistics — Austria GmbH and Express Interfracht Hellas A.E., jointly and severally: EUR 17 356 000;

| (c) | Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker & Co AG and Schenker A.E., jointly and severally: EUR 31 798 000. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker & Co AG and Schenker A.E., jointly and severally: EUR 31 798 000.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

1

(2)  Formerly ‘Express Interfracht Internationale Spedition GmbH’.

2

(3)  Also known as ‘Express — Interfracht Hellas Societe Anonyme International & National Forwarding & Logistics’.

3

(4)  Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ C 167, 2.7.2008, p. 1).

4

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

5

(6)  Blocktrains are a rail cargo shipping method whereby all the waggons are shipped from one hub to another without being split up or stored ‘en route’. This saves time and money as no assembling and disassembling trains at different rail stations is required. Blocktrains are economically more efficient in particular for high-volume customers, thus often the blocktrains carry only one commodity.

6

(7)  The intrinsic cooperation on upstream services (joint purchasing) necessary to run the blocktrains jointly is not covered by this Decision.

7

(8)  OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 2.

8

---