# C_2018039EN.01001001.xml

| 2.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/10

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 16 June 2017

amending Decision C(2014) 9295 final 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.39780 — Envelopes)

(notified under document number C(2017) 4112)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2018/C 39/06)

On 16 June 2017, the Commission adopted a decision amending 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 16 June 2017, the Commission adopted a decision amending 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) | The Decision relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision relates to a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | The infringement concerns stock/catalogue envelopes and special printed (transactional and/or bespoke) envelopes of all shapes, colours and sizes. Standard/catalogue envelopes are envelopes of different sizes without print (branded/private label or no label), which are usually acquired in bulk on the basis of manufacturers' catalogues. Special printed (transactional and/or bespoke) envelopes are printed envelopes specifically designed and produced according to customers' specifications. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The infringement concerns stock/catalogue envelopes and special printed (transactional and/or bespoke) envelopes of all shapes, colours and sizes. Standard/catalogue envelopes are envelopes of different sizes without print (branded/private label or no label), which are usually acquired in bulk on the basis of manufacturers' catalogues. Special printed (transactional and/or bespoke) envelopes are printed envelopes specifically designed and produced according to customers' specifications.

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

Procedure

| (3) | The investigation started as an ex-officio case, on the basis of information received from an informant. Following inspections, several undertakings, including Tompla (now ‘Printeos’), applied for a reduction of the fine under the Leniency Notice. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The investigation started as an ex-officio case, on the basis of information received from an informant. Following inspections, several undertakings, including Tompla (now ‘Printeos’), applied for a reduction of the fine under the Leniency Notice.

| (4) | Settlement meetings took place between each party and the Commission between January and October 2014. In November 2014, all parties submitted a formal request to the Commission to settle the case under the terms of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Settlement meetings took place between each party and the Commission between January and October 2014. In November 2014, all parties submitted a formal request to the Commission to settle the case under the terms of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2).

2

| (5) | On 18 November 2014, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections. In line with the settlement procedure, this was followed by the parties' immediate replies that the SO corresponded with their settlement submissions. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

On 18 November 2014, the Commission adopted a Statement of Objections. In line with the settlement procedure, this was followed by the parties' immediate replies that the SO corresponded with their settlement submissions.

| (6) | In December 2014, the Commission imposed fines totalling EUR 19 485 000 upon five undertakings, including fines of EUR 4 729 000 on five legal entities belonging to the Printeos group (Printeos SA, Tompla Sobre Expres SL, Tompla Scandinavia AB, Tompla France SARL and Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (collectively formerly known as ‘Tompla’, now ‘Printeos’) (3). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In December 2014, the Commission imposed fines totalling EUR 19 485 000 upon five undertakings, including fines of EUR 4 729 000 on five legal entities belonging to the Printeos group (Printeos SA, Tompla Sobre Expres SL, Tompla Scandinavia AB, Tompla France SARL and Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (collectively formerly known as ‘Tompla’, now ‘Printeos’) (3).

3

| (7) | The 2014 Decision was adopted in the context of the settlement procedure within the meaning of Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and the 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 (4) (‘the Settlement Notice’). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The 2014 Decision was adopted in the context of the settlement procedure within the meaning of Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 and the 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 (4) (‘the Settlement Notice’).

4

| (8) | Following an appeal by Printeos against the fine it received, in December 2016 the General Court delivered a judgment (5) in which it annulled the fine imposed on Printeos for lack of sufficient reasoning in relation to the calculation of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Following an appeal by Printeos against the fine it received, in December 2016 the General Court delivered a judgment (5) in which it annulled the fine imposed on Printeos for lack of sufficient reasoning in relation to the calculation of the fine.

5

| (9) | In order to comply with the Judgment, by letter dated 29 March 2017 (6), the Commission informed Printeos that it intended to adopt a new decision in order to impose a fine. On 17 April 2017, Printeos replied to the letter of 29 March 2017 (7) and outlined arguments as to why the undertaking believed that the Commission may not adopt a second decision. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In order to comply with the Judgment, by letter dated 29 March 2017 (6), the Commission informed Printeos that it intended to adopt a new decision in order to impose a fine. On 17 April 2017, Printeos replied to the letter of 29 March 2017 (7) and outlined arguments as to why the undertaking believed that the Commission may not adopt a second decision.

6

7

| (10) | As the annulment of the fine of the 2014 Decision did not affect either the finding of the infringement in the 2014 decision or the legality of the preparatory acts, the Commission took up the procedure to the extent that and at the point at which the illegality occurred, i.e. the imposition of the fine in the 2014 Decision vitiated by a defective statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

As the annulment of the fine of the 2014 Decision did not affect either the finding of the infringement in the 2014 decision or the legality of the preparatory acts, the Commission took up the procedure to the extent that and at the point at which the illegality occurred, i.e. the imposition of the fine in the 2014 Decision vitiated by a defective statement of reasons.

| (11) | On 30 May 2017, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on the decision. On 9 June 2017, the Hearing Officer issued a report which concurs with the Commission's assessment of the case in relation to the arguments raised by Printeos. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

On 30 May 2017, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on the decision. On 9 June 2017, the Hearing Officer issued a report which concurs with the Commission's assessment of the case in relation to the arguments raised by Printeos.

| (12) | The Commission adopted the Decision on 16 June 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The Commission adopted the Decision on 16 June 2017.

| (13) | In line with the Judgment, the Decision provides further information on the facts that were taken into account in the 2014 Decision and explains in more detail the methodology that was applied by the Commission in reliance upon point 37 of the Commission's Guidelines in order to adjust the basic amount of the fine. The decision also substantiates the Commission's assessment of the case in relation to the arguments raised by Printeos in its letter of 17 April 2017 and imposes the same fine as set in the 2014 Decision for its participation in the infringement found in Article 1 of the 2014 Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

In line with the Judgment, the Decision provides further information on the facts that were taken into account in the 2014 Decision and explains in more detail the methodology that was applied by the Commission in reliance upon point 37 of the Commission's Guidelines in order to adjust the basic amount of the fine. The decision also substantiates the Commission's assessment of the case in relation to the arguments raised by Printeos in its letter of 17 April 2017 and imposes the same fine as set in the 2014 Decision for its participation in the infringement found in Article 1 of the 2014 Decision.

2.2.   Addressees and duration

Addressees and duration

| (14) | The decision is addressed to the five legal entities of the Printeos Group: PRINTEOS SA, PRINTEOS CARTERA INDUSTRIAL SL (formerly TOMPLA SOBRE EXPRES SL), TOMPLA SCANDINAVIA AB, TOMPLA FRANCE SARL and TOMPLA DRUCKERZEUGNISSE VERTRIEBS GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The decision is addressed to the five legal entities of the Printeos Group: PRINTEOS SA, PRINTEOS CARTERA INDUSTRIAL SL (formerly TOMPLA SOBRE EXPRES SL), TOMPLA SCANDINAVIA AB, TOMPLA FRANCE SARL and TOMPLA DRUCKERZEUGNISSE VERTRIEBS GmbH.

| (15) | As found in the 2014 Decision, Printeos infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, by participating in anticompetitive practices in respect to the supply of paper envelopes between 8 October 2003 and 22 April 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

As found in the 2014 Decision, Printeos infringed Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, by participating in anticompetitive practices in respect to the supply of paper envelopes between 8 October 2003 and 22 April 2008.

2.3.   Summary of the infringement

Summary of the infringement

| (16) | The infringement is as described by the 2014 Decision. In line with the description of the infringement in that decision, the infringement consisted of price coordination, customer allocation and exchanges of commercially sensitive information relating to stock/catalogue envelopes (8) and special printed (transactional/bespoke) envelopes (9). This single and continuous infringement covered the territories of Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The infringement is as described by the 2014 Decision. In line with the description of the infringement in that decision, the infringement consisted of price coordination, customer allocation and exchanges of commercially sensitive information relating to stock/catalogue envelopes (8) and special printed (transactional/bespoke) envelopes (9). This single and continuous infringement covered the territories of Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

8

9

2.4.   Remedies

Remedies

| (17) | The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (10) and imposes fines on the five legal entities in the Printeos group as listed under point 2.2 above. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on Fines (10) and imposes fines on the five legal entities in the Printeos group as listed under point 2.2 above.

10

2.4.1.   Basic amount of the fine

Basic amount of the fine

| (18) | In setting the fines, the Commission took into account the undertakings' sales of stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes in the last full business year prior to the end of the cartel, the fact that price coordination arrangements are amongst the most harmful restrictions of competition, the duration of the cartel and an additional amount to deter undertakings from entering into price coordination practices. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

In setting the fines, the Commission took into account the undertakings' sales of stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes in the last full business year prior to the end of the cartel, the fact that price coordination arrangements are amongst the most harmful restrictions of competition, the duration of the cartel and an additional amount to deter undertakings from entering into price coordination practices.

2.4.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount

Adjustments to the basic amount

| (19) | The Commission did not apply any aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Commission did not apply any aggravating circumstances.

2.4.3.   Adaption of the adjusted basic amount

Adaption of the adjusted basic amount

| (20) | The fine is calculated on the basis of the same parameters that were used when setting the original fine in the 2014 Decision. In view of the specific circumstances of the case, the Commission exercised its discretion in accordance with point 37 of the 2006 Fines Guidelines and adapted the fine in a way that takes into account the proportion of the sales of the cartelised product in relation to the total turnover and the differences between the parties in view of their individual participation in the infringement. This means that Printeos benefits from the discretionary reduction that was provided further to Article 37 of the Fines Guidelines to all addressees of the 2014 Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The fine is calculated on the basis of the same parameters that were used when setting the original fine in the 2014 Decision. In view of the specific circumstances of the case, the Commission exercised its discretion in accordance with point 37 of the 2006 Fines Guidelines and adapted the fine in a way that takes into account the proportion of the sales of the cartelised product in relation to the total turnover and the differences between the parties in view of their individual participation in the infringement. This means that Printeos benefits from the discretionary reduction that was provided further to Article 37 of the Fines Guidelines to all addressees of the 2014 Decision.

| (21) | The fine stays within the range that was disclosed and accepted by Printeos in the context of the settlement procedure. It does not exceed 10 % of Printeos' total turnover in 2015 or its estimated total turnover in 2016. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The fine stays within the range that was disclosed and accepted by Printeos in the context of the settlement procedure. It does not exceed 10 % of Printeos' total turnover in 2015 or its estimated total turnover in 2016.

2.4.4.   Application of the 10 % turnover limit

Application of the 10 % turnover limit

| (22) | In this case, the fine does not exceed 10 % of Printeos' total turnover for 2015 or its estimated turnover for 2016. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

In this case, the fine does not exceed 10 % of Printeos' total turnover for 2015 or its estimated turnover for 2016.

2.4.5.   Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

Application of the 2006 Leniency Notice

| (23) | The Commission granted a 50 % reduction of the fine to Printeos. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The Commission granted a 50 % reduction of the fine to Printeos.

2.4.6.   Application of the Settlement Notice

Application of the Settlement Notice

| (24) | As a result of the application of the Settlement Notice, the amount of the fine for Printeos was reduced by 10 %. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

As a result of the application of the Settlement Notice, the amount of the fine for Printeos was reduced by 10 %.

3.   CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

| (25) | The following fine was imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003:
  PRINTEOS SA, PRINTEOS CARTERA INDUSTRIAL SL (formerly TOMPLA SOBRE EXPRES SL), TOMPLA SCANDINAVIA AB, TOMPLA FRANCE SARL and TOMPLA DRUCKERZEUGNISSE VERTRIEBS GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 4 729 000. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

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

PRINTEOS SA, PRINTEOS CARTERA INDUSTRIAL SL (formerly TOMPLA SOBRE EXPRES SL), TOMPLA SCANDINAVIA AB, TOMPLA FRANCE SARL and TOMPLA DRUCKERZEUGNISSE VERTRIEBS GmbH, jointly and severally liable: EUR 4 729 000.

---

(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)  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).

2

(3)  On 15 July 2015, the name of Tompla Sobre Expres SL was changed to Printeos Cartera Industrial SL.

3

(4)  OJ C 167, 2.7.2008, p. 1.

4

(5)  Case T-95/15, Printeos, SA and Others v European Commission, EU:T:2016:722.

5

Printeos, SA and Others

European Commission

(6)  Letter of 29 March 2017, reference *D/2017/022104 COMP/G-2/MJ/dlj.

6

(7)  Printeos had already in a letter dated 3 March 2017 informed the Commission's services that it believed that the Commission could not adopt a second decision on the same facts and against the same undertakings, since this would infringe Printeos' fundamental right of ne bis in idem guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4(1) of Protocol No 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

7

(8)  Standard, plain envelopes which can be chosen from the manufacturer's standard catalogue and can be bought off-the-shelf in large quantities.

8

(9)  Special printed envelopes (transactional and/or bespoke) are designed and produced to the customer specification. They are used in the direct mail and also for sending utilities invoices, bank statements, etc.

9

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

10

---