EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/7

Summary of Commission Decision

of 30 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 against the undertakings ArcelorMittal, Emesa/Galycas/ArcelorMittal (España), GlobalSteelWire/Tycsa, Proderac, Companhia Previdente/Socitrel, Fapricela, Nedri/HIT Groep, WDI/Pampus, DWK/Saarstahl, voestalpine Austria Draht, Rautaruukki/Ovako, Italcables/Antonini, Redaelli, CB Trafilati Acciai, I.T.A.S., Ori Martin/Siderurgica Latina Martin, Emme Holding

(Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel)

(notified under document C(2010) 4387 (final) as amended by Commission Decision of 30 September 2010 notified under document C(2010) 6676 (final) and Commission Decision of 4 April 2011 notified under document C(2011) 2269 (final))

(Only the Dutch, English, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 339/06

On 30 June 2010, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement), which was amended by Commission Decisions of 30 September 2010 and 4 April 2011. 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

(1) This Decision is addressed to 36 legal entities belonging to 17 prestressing steel undertakings for having participated in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. They engaged in price-fixing, quota-fixing, client allocation and the exchange of commercially sensitive information in a cartel regarding prestressing steel with the exception of special strand and stays. The cartel lasted between January 1984 and September 2002 and concerned all the countries that then formed the EU-15 except Ireland, Greece and the United Kingdom. It also affected Norway. The cartel stopped in 2002, when DWK/Saarstahl revealed its existence under the Commission Leniency Notice (2) introduced that year.

2. CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1. Procedure

(2) The case was opened on the basis of an immunity application of DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH (DWK) on 18 June 2002.

(3) Following the information provided, inspections took place on 19 and 20 September 2002 at the premises of 14 undertakings in six countries.

(4) Subsequently, between 21 September 2002 and 28 June 2007, the Commission received leniency applications from six undertakings. Four undertakings also provided self-incriminating information in reply to requests for information.

(5) The investigation of the case was followed by addressing several requests for information to all the companies involved in the anti-competitive arrangements and by an additional inspection on 7 and 8 June 2006 at the premises of Mr (…), external consultant to the (Italian part of the) cartel.

(6) The Statement of Objections was adopted on 30 September 2008 and the Oral Hearing took place on 11 and 12 February 2009.

(7) The Commission adopted a decision on 30 June 2010 and an amendment decision correcting some errors in the calculation of the fine on 30 September 2010.

(8) On 4 April 2011, the Commission adopted a further amendment decision in which it exercised its margin of appreciation to reduce the fines for which four of the legal entities involved in the cartel were solely liable, in that they related only to those periods in which the legal entities participated without their current parent companies, in order to ensure that the level of those fines was not disproportionate to their own size and turnover. The Commission reduced the relevant fines to ten percent of the legal entities’ own turnovers.

2.2. Summary of the infringement

(9) This case concerns an infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and, from 1 January 1994, of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement with regards to prestressing steel with the exception of special strand and stays. Prestressing steel consists of long, curled steel wires used with concrete on construction sites to make foundations, balconies or bridges and also is used in underground engineering and bridge-building.

(10) The suppliers concerned engaged in price fixing, quota fixing, client allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information in a cartel with a duration of over 18 years, lasting between at least 1 January 1984 and 19 September 2002. In addition, they monitored price, client and quota arrangements through a system of national coordinators and bilateral contacts. Some suppliers were also involved in a specific form of client allocation towards one big Nordic client. The infringement constitutes by its very nature one of the worst kinds of Article 101 of the TFEU.

(11) The cartel consisted of a pan-European arrangement, first referred to as ‘Club Zurich’, named after the place in Switzerland where the first cartel meetings were held, and later as ‘Club Europe’. But there were also two regional arrangements, in Italy (Club Italia) and in Spain/Portugal (Club España). The different arrangements of the cartel constituted one single, complex and continuous infringement because they were interconnected by overlapping territory, membership and chronology. They, moreover, shared the same goal and used identical mechanisms. Indeed, the goal of the cartel was to stabilise the suppliers’ market shares in order to stabilise prices and facilitate price increases. This was done by agreeing on quotas, prices and/or client allocation. The agreements were monitored and compensation mechanisms were set up. In addition, the participants to the different arrangements were mutually aware of each others’ attempts to stabilise the market shares/prices and there were efforts to agree on a common equilibrium and to fix prices together.

(12) The companies involved usually met in the margin of official trade meetings in hotels all over Europe. The Commission has evidence of over 550 cartel meetings.

2.3. Addressees and duration

(13) The addressees of the Decision participated in the infringement during at least the following periods: Undertaking formed by Period of liability 1. (a) ArcelorMittal Wire France SA 1.1.1984 to 19.9.2002 (b) ArcelorMittal Fontaine SA 20.12.1984 to 19.9.2002 (c) ArcelorMittal Verderio Srl and 3.4.1995 to 19.9.2002 (d) ArcelorMittal 1.7.1999 to 19.9.2002 2. (a) Emesa-Trefilería SA 30.11.1992 to 19.9.2002 (b) Industrias Galycas SA 15.12.1992 to 19.9.2002 (c) ArcelorMittal España SA and 2.4.1995 to 19.9.2002 (d) ArcelorMittal 18.2.2002 to 19.9.2002 3. (a) Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA 10.6.1993 to 19.9.2002 (b) Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL 26.3.1998 to 19.9.2002 (c) Trefilerías Quijano SA and 15.12.1992 to 19.9.2002 (d) Global Steel Wire SA 15.12.1992 to 19.9.2002 4. SOCITREL — Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria SA and Companhia Previdente — Sociedade de Controle de Participações Financeiras SA 7.4.1994 to 19.9.2002 5. voestalpine Austria Draht GmbH and voestalpine AG 15.4.1997 to 19.9.2002 6. Fapricela Industria de Trefilaria SA 2.12.1998 to 19.9.2002 7. Proderac Productos Derivados del Acero SA 24.5.1994 to 19.9.2002 8. (a) Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH 1.1.1984 to 19.9.2002 (b) Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG 3.9.1987 to 19.9.2002 (c) Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG 1.7.1997 to 19.9.2002 9. (a) Nedri Spanstaal BV 1.1.1984 to 19.9.2002 (b) Hit Groep BV 1.1.1998 to 17.1.2002 10. DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH and Saarstahl AG 9.2.1994 to 6.11.2001 11. Ovako Hjulsbro AB, Ovako Dalwire Oy Ab, Ovako Bright Bar AB and Rautaruukki Oyj 23.10.1997 to 31.12.2001 12. Italcables SpA and Antonini SpA 24.2.1993 to 19.9.2002 13. Redaelli Tecna SpA 1.1.1984 to 19.9.2002 14. CB Trafilati Acciai SpA 23.1.1995 to 19.9.2002 15. I.T.A.S. — Industria Trafileria Applicazioni Speciali — SpA 24.2.1993 to 19.9.2002 16. (a) Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA and 10.2.1997 to 19.9.2002 (b) ORI Martin SA 1.1.1999 to 19.9.2002 17. Emme Holding SpA 4.3.1997 to 19.9.2002

2.4. Remedies

2.4.1. Basic Amount of the fine

(14) In setting the fines, the Commission took into account the sales of the companies involved in the market concerned in the last year prior to the end of the cartel (2001; except for DWK, 2000), the very serious nature of the infringement, the geographic scope of the cartel and its long duration.

2.4.2. Adjustments to the basic amount

2.4.2.1. Aggravating/mitigating circumstances

(15) The Commission increased the fines for ArcelorMittal Fontaine and ArcelorMittal Wire France because they had already been fined for prior cartel involvement. Saarstahl was previously fined in the steel beams cartel, but received full immunity in the present cartel because it was the first to come forward with information under the Commission’s 2002 Leniency Notice.

(16) The Commission recognised the more limited participation of Proderac and Emme Holding by reducing their fine by 5 %. The fine for ArcelorMittal España was reduced by 15 % for its cooperation outside the Leniency Notice.

2.4.2.2. Application of the 10 % turnover limit

(17) The fine on several companies would have exceeded the legal maximum of 10 % of the 2009 turnover, and was therefore reduced to this level.

2.4.3. Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice

(18) The Commission granted full immunity from the fine to DWK/Saarstahl and a reduction of the fine for cooperation under the 2002 Leniency Notice to Italcables/Antonini (50 %), Nedri (25 %), Emesa and Galycas (5 %), ArcelorMittal and its subsidiaries (20 %) and WDI/Pampus (5 %). Redaelli and SLM did not meet the requirements for cooperation and therefore received no reduction of the fine.

2.4.4. Ability to pay

(19) The Commission accepted three inability-to-pay applications and granted reductions of respectively 25 %, 50 % and 75 % of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed. It had received applications from 13 undertakings under the Commission’s 2006 Fines Guidelines.

3. DECISION

(20) The following fines were imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003: 1. EUR 45 705 600 on ArcelorMittal Wire France SA and ArcelorMittal Fontaine SA, of which, ArcelorMittal Verderio Srl is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 32 353 600; of which ArcelorMittal SA is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 31 680 000. 2. EUR 36 720 000 on ArcelorMittal España SA, of which ArcelorMittal SA is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 8 256 000; of which Emesa — Trefilería SA is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 2 576 400; of which Industrias Galycas SA is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 868 300. 3. EUR 54 389 000 jointly and severally on Global Steel Wire SA and Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA, of which Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 40 000 000; of which Trefilerías Quijano SA is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 4 190 000. 4. EUR 12 590 000 jointly and severally on Companhia Previdente — Sociedade de Controle de Participações Financeiras SA and SOCITREL — Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria SA. 5. EUR 22 000 000 jointly and severally on voestalpine AG and voestalpine Austria Draht GmbH. 6. EUR 8 874 000 on Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA. 7. EUR 482 250 on Proderac Productos Derivados del Acero SA. 8. EUR 46 550 000 on Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, of which Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 38 855 000; of which Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 15 485 000. 9. EUR 6 934 000 on HIT Groep BV, of which Nedri Spanstaal BV is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 5 056 500. 10. EUR 0 jointly and severally on Saarstahl AG and DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH. 11. EUR 4 300 000 jointly and severally on Rautaruukki Oyj and Ovako Bright Bar AB, of which Ovako Hjulsbro AB is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 1 808 000; of which Ovako Dalwire Oy Ab is held jointly and severally liable up for the amount of EUR 554 000. 12. EUR 2 386 000 on Italcables SpA, of which Antonini SpA is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 22 500. 13. EUR 6 341 000 on Redaelli Tecna SpA. 14. EUR 2 552 500 on CB Trafilati Acciai SpA. 15. EUR 843 000 on I.T.A.S. — Industria Trafileria Applicazioni Speciali — SpA. 16. EUR 15 956 000 on Siderurgica Latina Martin SpA, of which: ORI Martin SA is held jointly and severally liable for the amount of EUR 14 000 000. 17. EUR 3 249 000 on Emme Holding SpA.

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

(2) This was still in accordance with the 2002 Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 45, 19.2.2002, p. 3).