# C_2011138EN.01002101.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/21

---

Summary of Commission Decision

of 23 June 2010

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 COMP/36.212 — Carbonless paper)

(notified under document C(2010) 4160 final)

(Only the French text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 138/08

On 23 June 2010 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, the Commission publishes below the name of the party and the main content of the decision, including the penalty imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of the undertaking in the protection of its business secrets. A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition at the following address:

On 23 June 2010 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, the Commission publishes below the name of the party and the main content of the decision, including the penalty imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of the undertaking in the protection of its business secrets. A non-confidential version of the decision is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Competition at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/

1.   INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

| (1) | The Decision is addressed to Bolloré for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. From January 1992 to September 1995, that company participated in an agreement aimed at fixing price increases and market shares for carbonless paper. This Decision has been adopted following the resumption of the proceedings that led to Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 (1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Decision of 20 December 2001’), due to the annulment of that Decision by the Court of Justice for a procedural error in so far as it relates to Bolloré. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Decision is addressed to Bolloré for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. From January 1992 to September 1995, that company participated in an agreement aimed at fixing price increases and market shares for carbonless paper. This Decision has been adopted following the resumption of the proceedings that led to Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 (1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Decision of 20 December 2001’), due to the annulment of that Decision by the Court of Justice for a procedural error in so far as it relates to Bolloré.

1

2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure

Procedure

| (2) | To correct the procedural error that led to the annulment of the Decision of 20 December 2001, a new statement of objections was adopted on 15 December 2009. Bolloré was given the opportunity to consult the file and to respond in writing to the Commission’s preliminary opinion. The company responded in writing on 16 February 2010 and orally at the hearing held on 17 March 2010. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 10 June 2010. The Commission adopted the Decision on 23 June 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

To correct the procedural error that led to the annulment of the Decision of 20 December 2001, a new statement of objections was adopted on 15 December 2009. Bolloré was given the opportunity to consult the file and to respond in writing to the Commission’s preliminary opinion. The company responded in writing on 16 February 2010 and orally at the hearing held on 17 March 2010. The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 10 June 2010. The Commission adopted the Decision on 23 June 2010.

2.2.   Summary of the infringement

Summary of the infringement

| (3) | The Decision concerns a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement relating to paper intended for the multiple duplication of documents, which is made from a paper base to which layers of chemical products are applied. The product is also known as carbonless paper or self-copying paper. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Decision concerns a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement relating to paper intended for the multiple duplication of documents, which is made from a paper base to which layers of chemical products are applied. The product is also known as carbonless paper or self-copying paper.

| (4) | The investigation has shown that the anti-competitive conduct started at the latest in January 1992 and lasted until at least September 1995. The cartel meetings were held at two levels: at the general level and at the national or regional level. The EEA-wide planning and coordination of the cartel took place at the general meetings of the cartel, while the purpose of the national or regional meetings was to ensure that the price increases agreed at the general meetings were applied, market by market. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The investigation has shown that the anti-competitive conduct started at the latest in January 1992 and lasted until at least September 1995. The cartel meetings were held at two levels: at the general level and at the national or regional level. The EEA-wide planning and coordination of the cartel took place at the general meetings of the cartel, while the purpose of the national or regional meetings was to ensure that the price increases agreed at the general meetings were applied, market by market.

| (5) | Bolloré is held accountable as the parent company of Copigraph and for its direct involvement. Bolloré's liability as parent company arises in particular from the fact that Bolloré wholly owned Copigraph. Bolloré’s direct involvement arises primarily from the fact that the individuals who attended the cartel meetings were not only senior managers of Copigraph, but also held positions in Bolloré’s special papers division. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Bolloré is held accountable as the parent company of Copigraph and for its direct involvement. Bolloré's liability as parent company arises in particular from the fact that Bolloré wholly owned Copigraph. Bolloré’s direct involvement arises primarily from the fact that the individuals who attended the cartel meetings were not only senior managers of Copigraph, but also held positions in Bolloré’s special papers division.

2.3.   Addressee and duration of the infringement

Addressee and duration of the infringement

| (6) | Bolloré is the only addressee of the Decision. The infringement lasted from January 1992 to September 1995. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Bolloré is the only addressee of the Decision. The infringement lasted from January 1992 to September 1995.

2.4.   Corrective measures

Corrective measures

| (7) | To calculate the fine, the Decision applies the same principles as those contained in the Decision of 20 December 2001. This means that the calculation of the fine is based on the 1998 guidelines and that the fine is the same as the one indicated in the first Decision, less an additional reduction justified by the company’s conduct following the statement of objections of 15 December 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

To calculate the fine, the Decision applies the same principles as those contained in the Decision of 20 December 2001. This means that the calculation of the fine is based on the 1998 guidelines and that the fine is the same as the one indicated in the first Decision, less an additional reduction justified by the company’s conduct following the statement of objections of 15 December 2009.

| (8) | In this respect, under the first Decision Bolloré benefited from a 20 % reduction in the fine for its cooperation under the 1996 Leniency Notice, on the basis of the additional information concerning the end date of the cartel provided by Copigraph in reply to a request for information and before the first statement of objections (Section D(1) of the 1996 Leniency Notice). Since Bolloré no longer contests the starting date of the cartel (as it did previously), the Commission has decided to apply an additional 5 % reduction in the fine in accordance with Section D(2) of the 1996 Leniency Notice, which provides for a reduction in the fine in the event that the company does not contest the facts after receiving the statement of objections. The total amount of the reduction pursuant to Section D of the 1996 Leniency Notice is therefore 25 %. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

In this respect, under the first Decision Bolloré benefited from a 20 % reduction in the fine for its cooperation under the 1996 Leniency Notice, on the basis of the additional information concerning the end date of the cartel provided by Copigraph in reply to a request for information and before the first statement of objections (Section D(1) of the 1996 Leniency Notice). Since Bolloré no longer contests the starting date of the cartel (as it did previously), the Commission has decided to apply an additional 5 % reduction in the fine in accordance with Section D(2) of the 1996 Leniency Notice, which provides for a reduction in the fine in the event that the company does not contest the facts after receiving the statement of objections. The total amount of the reduction pursuant to Section D of the 1996 Leniency Notice is therefore 25 %.

3.   FINE IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

FINE IMPOSED BY THE DECISION

| (9) | The Decision therefore imposes on Bolloré a fine of EUR 21 262 500. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The Decision therefore imposes on Bolloré a fine of EUR 21 262 500.

---

(1)  OJ L 115, 21.4.2004.

1

---