# C_2016484EN.01002701.xml

| 24.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 484/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 484/27

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 21 October 2015

relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

(Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives)

(notified under document C(2015) 7135)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2016/C 484/10)

On 21 October 2015, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. 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 21 October 2015, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. 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) | On 21 October 2015, the Commission adopted a Decision relating to infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the optical disk drives sector. The addressees of the Decision coordinated their behaviour in the procurement tenders for optical disk drives (‘ODDs’) for laptops and desktops produced by two computer manufacturers, Dell, Inc. (‘Dell’) and Hewlett Packard (‘HP’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 21 October 2015, the Commission adopted a Decision relating to infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in the optical disk drives sector. The addressees of the Decision coordinated their behaviour in the procurement tenders for optical disk drives (‘ODDs’) for laptops and desktops produced by two computer manufacturers, Dell, Inc. (‘Dell’) and Hewlett Packard (‘HP’).

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

Procedure

| (2) | Following the joint immunity application of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Lite-On IT Corporation and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission addressed on 29 June 2009 targeted requests for information to the undertakings active in the industry and received a subsequent leniency application from Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the joint immunity application of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Lite-On IT Corporation and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission addressed on 29 June 2009 targeted requests for information to the undertakings active in the industry and received a subsequent leniency application from Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc.

| (3) | On 18 July 2012, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) in this case. All addressees of the Statement of Objections made known in writing their views on the objections raised against them and were given the opportunity to exercise their right to be heard by participating in an oral hearing that was held on 29 and 30 November 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 18 July 2012, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) in this case. All addressees of the Statement of Objections made known in writing their views on the objections raised against them and were given the opportunity to exercise their right to be heard by participating in an oral hearing that was held on 29 and 30 November 2012.

| (4) | On 18 February 2014, the Commission adopted two Supplementary Statements of Objections (‘SSOs of 18 February 2014’) to supplement, amend and/or clarify the objections addressed to certain addressees of the SO as regards their liability for the alleged infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 18 February 2014, the Commission adopted two Supplementary Statements of Objections (‘SSOs of 18 February 2014’) to supplement, amend and/or clarify the objections addressed to certain addressees of the SO as regards their liability for the alleged infringement.

| (5) | On 1 June 2015, the Commission adopted another Supplementary Statement of Objections (‘SSO of 1 June 2015’). The sole purpose of the SSO of 1 June 2015 was to supplement the SO and the SSOs of 18 February 2014 by addressing the objections from the original SO to additional legal entities pertaining to the corporate groups that were addressees of the SO. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 1 June 2015, the Commission adopted another Supplementary Statement of Objections (‘SSO of 1 June 2015’). The sole purpose of the SSO of 1 June 2015 was to supplement the SO and the SSOs of 18 February 2014 by addressing the objections from the original SO to additional legal entities pertaining to the corporate groups that were addressees of the SO.

| (6) | The addressees of the SSOs of 18 February 2014 and of 1 June 2015 made known their views to the Commission in writing, but did not request any oral hearing. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The addressees of the SSOs of 18 February 2014 and of 1 June 2015 made known their views to the Commission in writing, but did not request any oral hearing.

| (7) | On 3 June 2015, the Commission issued a Letter of Facts to all parties. The addressees of the Letter of Facts made known their views to the Commission in writing. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

On 3 June 2015, the Commission issued a Letter of Facts to all parties. The addressees of the Letter of Facts made known their views to the Commission in writing.

| (8) | The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 5 and 15 October 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 5 and 15 October 2015.

2.2.   Summary of the infringement

Summary of the infringement

| (9) | The infringement involved collusion in relation to procurement tenders organized by Dell and HP in the period 2004-2008. The investigation uncovered a network of parallel bilateral contacts to manipulate bids, substituting the uncertainties inherent in competition by collusion. The parties communicated to each other their intentions regarding ranking and/or pricing in procurement tenders and exchanged other commercially sensitive procurement-related information. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The infringement involved collusion in relation to procurement tenders organized by Dell and HP in the period 2004-2008. The investigation uncovered a network of parallel bilateral contacts to manipulate bids, substituting the uncertainties inherent in competition by collusion. The parties communicated to each other their intentions regarding ranking and/or pricing in procurement tenders and exchanged other commercially sensitive procurement-related information.

2.3.   Addressees

Addressees

| (10) | The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in a cartel infringement in the optical disk drives sector:






  (a) | Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (further referred to as ‘Philips’) from 13 September 2004 to 6 August 2006 |
| --- | --- | --- |

(10)

The following undertakings infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating, during the periods indicated, in a cartel infringement in the optical disk drives sector:

(a)

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Koninklijke Philips N.V. (further referred to as ‘Philips’) from 13 September 2004 to 6 August 2006

| (b) | Lite-On Sales & Distribution, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corporation (further referred to as ‘Lite-On’) from 23 August 2004 to 4 March 2007 |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Lite-On Sales & Distribution, Inc., Lite-On Technology Corporation (further referred to as ‘Lite-On’) from 23 August 2004 to 4 March 2007

| (c) | Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc., Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation (further referred to as ‘PLDS’) from 7 August 2006 to 25 November 2008 |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc., Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation (further referred to as ‘PLDS’) from 7 August 2006 to 25 November 2008

| (d) | Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. (further referred to as ‘HLDS’) from 23 June 2004 to 25 November 2008 |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. (further referred to as ‘HLDS’) from 23 June 2004 to 25 November 2008

| (e) | Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation (further referred to as ‘TSST’) from 23 June 2004 to 17 November 2008 |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation (further referred to as ‘TSST’) from 23 June 2004 to 17 November 2008

| (f) | Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Corporation (further referred to as ‘Sony’) from 23 August 2004 to 15 September 2006 |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Corporation (further referred to as ‘Sony’) from 23 August 2004 to 15 September 2006

| (g) | Sony Optiarc America Inc., from 25 July 2007 to 31 October 2007; Sony Optiarc Inc. (further referred to as ‘Optiarc’) from 25 July 2007 to 29 October 2008 |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Sony Optiarc America Inc., from 25 July 2007 to 31 October 2007; Sony Optiarc Inc. (further referred to as ‘Optiarc’) from 25 July 2007 to 29 October 2008

| (h) | Quanta Storage Inc. from 14 February 2008 to 28 October 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Quanta Storage Inc. from 14 February 2008 to 28 October 2008.

2.4.   Remedies

Remedies

| (11) | The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2). |
| --- | --- |

(11)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on fines (2).

2

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

Basic amount of the fine

| (12) | In order to better reflect the actual impact of the cartel, a proxy for the annual value of sales (based on the actual value of ODD sales in the EEA made by the undertakings in the relevant period of their participation in the infringements) is used as the basis for the calculation of the basic amount of the fines imposed. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In order to better reflect the actual impact of the cartel, a proxy for the annual value of sales (based on the actual value of ODD sales in the EEA made by the undertakings in the relevant period of their participation in the infringements) is used as the basis for the calculation of the basic amount of the fines imposed.

| (13) | Considering the nature of the infringement and its geographic scope, the percentage for the variable amount of the fine as well as the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 16 % of the value of sales for the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Considering the nature of the infringement and its geographic scope, the percentage for the variable amount of the fine as well as the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 16 % of the value of sales for the infringement.

| (14) | The variable amount is multiplied by the number of years or by fractions of the year respectively of the company’s participation in the infringement in order to take fully into account the duration of the participation for each undertaking in the infringement individually. The Commission takes into account the actual duration of participation in the infringement of the parties on a (rounded down) monthly and pro rata basis. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The variable amount is multiplied by the number of years or by fractions of the year respectively of the company’s participation in the infringement in order to take fully into account the duration of the participation for each undertaking in the infringement individually. The Commission takes into account the actual duration of participation in the infringement of the parties on a (rounded down) monthly and pro rata basis.

| (15) | Given that the contacts concerning Dell started before those concerning HP, the value of sales are calculated separately per customer and two distinct duration multipliers are applied. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Given that the contacts concerning Dell started before those concerning HP, the value of sales are calculated separately per customer and two distinct duration multipliers are applied.

| (16) | The value of sales for Philips, Sony and Optiarc was calculated only on the basis of sales to Dell, as it has not been established that these three undertakings participated in the anticompetitive conduct concerning HP. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The value of sales for Philips, Sony and Optiarc was calculated only on the basis of sales to Dell, as it has not been established that these three undertakings participated in the anticompetitive conduct concerning HP.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

Adjustments to the basic amount

| (17) | There are no aggravating circumstances taken into account by the Commission in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

There are no aggravating circumstances taken into account by the Commission in this case.

| (18) | A mitigating factor is applied to Philips, Sony and Optiarc in order to reflect their lack of awareness of and liability for the part of the single and continuous infringement that relates to HP. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

A mitigating factor is applied to Philips, Sony and Optiarc in order to reflect their lack of awareness of and liability for the part of the single and continuous infringement that relates to HP.

2.4.3.   Specific increase for deterrence

Specific increase for deterrence

| (19) | In this case, a deterrence multiplier of 1,2 is applied to Sony. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

In this case, a deterrence multiplier of 1,2 is applied to Sony.

2.4.4.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| (20) | The final individual amounts of the fines are below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of all the addressed undertakings, except for TSST. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The final individual amounts of the fines are below 10 % of the worldwide turnovers of all the addressed undertakings, except for TSST.

2.4.5.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

| (21) | Philips, Lite-On and PLDS undertakings were first to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice. The fine to be imposed is reduced by 100 % for all three undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Philips, Lite-On and PLDS undertakings were first to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice. The fine to be imposed is reduced by 100 % for all three undertakings.

| (22) | HLDS undertaking is granted 50 % reduction for the infringement as well as an additional reduction in application of the last paragraph of point 26 of the Leniency Notice to the extent that the information provided by HLDS enabled the Commission to establish facts extending the duration of the infringement. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

HLDS undertaking is granted 50 % reduction for the infringement as well as an additional reduction in application of the last paragraph of point 26 of the Leniency Notice to the extent that the information provided by HLDS enabled the Commission to establish facts extending the duration of the infringement.

3.   FINES IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

FINES IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

| (23) | For the single and continuous ODD infringement, the following fines are imposed:






  (a) | Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation, jointly and severally liable: EUR 0 |
| --- | --- | --- |

(23)

For the single and continuous ODD infringement, the following fines are imposed:

(a)

Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation, jointly and severally liable: EUR 0

| (b) | Lite-On Technology Corporation and Lite-On Sales & Distribution, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0 |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Lite-On Technology Corporation and Lite-On Sales & Distribution, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0

| (c) | Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0 |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 0

| (d) | Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 37 121 000 |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 37 121 000

| (e) | Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, jointly and severally liable: EUR 41 304 000 |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, jointly and severally liable: EUR 41 304 000

| (f) | Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 21 024 000 |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc., jointly and severally liable: EUR 21 024 000

| (g) | Sony Optiarc Inc.: EUR 9 782 000, of which EUR 5 433 000 jointly and severally with Sony Optiarc America Inc. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Sony Optiarc Inc.: EUR 9 782 000, of which EUR 5 433 000 jointly and severally with Sony Optiarc America Inc.

| (h) | Quanta Storage Inc.: EUR 7 146 000. |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Quanta Storage Inc.: EUR 7 146 000.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

1

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

2

---