2006/793/EC: Commission Decision of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) (notified under document number C(2006) 2098)   (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2006-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, control of restrictive practices, infringement procedure (EU), price agreement, restriction on competition, unlawful agreement

L 322/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2006

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 31 May 2006

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
(Case No COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates)

(notified under document number C(2006) 2098)

(Only the English and French texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/793/EC)

SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

THE METHACRYLATES INDUSTRY

(1)

(2)

(3)

This Decision was addressed to Degussa AG, Röhm
GmbH & Co. KG, Para-Chemie GmbH, Altuglas Inter-
national SA, Altumax Europe SAS, Arkema SA, Elf
ICI PLC, Lucite International
Aquitaine SA, Total SA,
Ltd and Lucite International UK Ltd, Quinn Barlo Ltd,
Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH.

The above 14 legal entities (belonging to five under-
takings, with some legal entities held liable as parent
companies)
infringed Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement by participating in a
single and continuous infringement between 23 January
1997 and 12 September 2002 in the methacrylates
industry in the EEA involving three products:

— Polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA)-moulding

compounds;

— Polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA)-solid sheet; and

— Polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA)-sanitaryware.

The infringement’s main features included: competitors
discussing prices, agreeing, implementing and monitoring
price agreements either in the form of price increases or
at least stabilisation of the existing prices; discussing the
passing on of additional service costs to customers;
exchange of commercially important and confidential
market and/or company relevant
information; partici-
pating in regular meetings and having other contacts to
agree to the above restrictions and monitor implemen-
tation within the EEA.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

PMMA-moulding compounds, PMMA-solid sheet and
PMMA-sanitaryware are part of a production chain with
Methacrylate-Monomers (MMA) being the starting point
the three PMMA-products.
and main raw material of
Although these
three PMMA-products are all both
physically and chemically distinct, they can be considered
as one homogenous product group due to a common
rawmaterial input.

The investigation showed that
the cartel covered the
whole of the EEA. The 2000 EEA market value for all
three PMMA-products was ca EUR 665 million for ca
255 000 tons.

PROCEDURE

In December 2002, the German company Degussa AG
informed the Commission of the existence of a cartel in
the Methacrylates industry and expressed the wish to
the 2002
cooperate with the Commission under
Leniency Notice. Degussa provided the Commission
with evidence
carrying out of
inspections in March 2003 at the premises of Atofina,
Barlo, Lucite and Degussa.

enabled the

that

After the inspections Atofina, Lucite and ICI submitted
applications for reduction of fines. Atofina and Lucite
In addition, Lucite
were granted a reduction of
was granted immunity for part of the duration of its
involvement in the cartel. ICI’s application was rejected
as it did not bring significant added value,

fines.

The Statement of Objections was addressed to 20 legal
entities belonging to seven undertakings. The Oral
Hearing, which all the addressees attended, was held on
15 and 16 December 2005.

22.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/21

FUNCTIONING OF THE CARTEL

(9) Whilst

in the mid 80s,

first anti-competitive
there are indications that
three PMMA-
the
contacts between producers of
products occurred already
the
Commission sets the starting date with the meeting of
23 January 1997, as this is the first anti-competitive
meeting for which the Commission has confirmation
from more than one of
this
summit meeting representatives of Atofina, Degussa
and ICI discussed the disappointing profit
situation
relating to PMMA-moulding compounds and PMMA-
solid sheet and the possibilities for a further coordination
of market behaviour by the competitors, sales managers
were to be disciplined to comply more strictly with
previous concluded agreements

the participants. At

(15)

(10) The

of

the

overall

structure

anti-competitive
arrangements for the three PMMA-products shows that
they can be considered as one single infringement
whereby competitors discussed prices, agreed,
imple-
mented and monitored price agreements, discussed the
passing on of additional service costs to customers and
exchanged commercially important
and confidential
market and/or company relevant information.

contacts

equitable comparison with Lucite's figures in terms of ICI
Acrylics’ turnover. Quinn Barlo with EUR 66,37 million
in PMMA-solid sheet alone has been placed in the third
category. It is not proven that Barlo took part in any
PMMA-moulding
collusive
compounds or PMMA-sanitaryware as it was not aware
or could not necessarily have knowledge of the overall
the anti-competitive arrangements. Conse-
scheme of
this case, a reduction of
quently, given the facts of
the fine
25 % was applied to the basic amount of
calculated for Barlo.

concerning

Sufficient deterrence

that

effect

it has

sufficient deterrent

In order to set the amount of the fine at a level which
ensures
the
Commission considers it appropriate to apply a multi-
plication factor to the fines imposed. The Commission
notes that
financial year
the most
preceding this Decision, the total turnovers of the under-
takings were as follows: Degussa AG: EUR 11,75 million;
Total SA: EUR 143,168 million and ICI PLC: EUR 8,49
million.

in 2005,

recent

FINES

Basic amount

(16) Accordingly and in line with previous decisions,

the
Commission considers it appropriate to multiply the
fine for Total/Atofina, Degussa and ICI.

Gravity

Duration

(11) Regarding the gravity of the infringement, impact on the
market and its geographic scope, the infringement must
be qualified as very serious.

(17)

Individual multiplying factors were also applied according
to the duration of the infringement by each legal entity.

Differential treatment

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Repeated infringements

(12) As there was considerable disparity between each under-
taking’s weighting in terms of turnover in the cartelised
treatment
applied
industry, we
each undertaking’s
(groupings)
account of
weighting: this approach seeks to differentiate how each
undertaking’s weighting damaged competition.

have
to take

differential

(18) At

the time the infringement

took place, Degussa,
Atofina and ICI had already been subject to previous
Commission prohibition decisions for cartel activities (1).
This justifies an increase in the basic amount of the fine
to be imposed on these undertakings.

(13) The undertakings have been divided into three categories
according to their 2000 EEA combined turnover in the
three PMMA products in 2000, the most recent year of
the infringement in which most undertakings to which
this Decision is addressed were active in the cartel.

(14) Degussa and Atofina of EUR 216 and 188 million
respectively are placed in the first category. Lucite with
EUR 105,98 million is the third largest producer and has
been placed in the second category. ICI, which has been
unable to provide turnover figures for its business unit
ICI Acrylics, is placed in the second category with Lucite
given that the sale of the former to the latter permits an

(1) Such decisions include:

As regards Degussa: Commission decision of 23 November 1984
the EEC Treaty
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
(IV/30.907 — Peroxygen products, OJ L 35 of 7.2.1985, p. 1);
Commission decision of 23 April 1986 relating to a proceeding
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.149 — Polypropylene, OJ
L 230 of 18.8.1986, p. 1).
As regards Atofina: Commission decision of 23 November 1984
the EEC Treaty
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
(IV/30.907 — Peroxygen products, OJ L 35 of 7.2.1985, p. 1);
Commission decision of 23 April 1986 relating to a proceeding
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.149 — Polypropylene, OJ
L 230 of 18.8.1986, p. 1) and Commission decision of 27 July
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
(IV/31.865 — PVC II, OJ L 239 of 14.9.1994, p. 14).
As regards ICI: Commission decision of 23 April 1986 relating to a
proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.149 — Poly-
propylene, OJ L 230 of 18.8.1986, p. 1); Commission decision of 27
July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC
Treaty (IV/31.865 — PVC II, OJ L 239 of 14.9.1994, p. 14).

L 322/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2006

ATTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Point 23 (b), second indent (reduction of 20-30 %)

(19)

Several undertakings claimed some or all of the following
attenuating circumstances: early termination of the infrin-
gement, a minor/passive role, the absence of an effective
implementation of the practices, the implementation of
compliance programs, absence of benefit, crisis in the
MMA industry. These claims are all rejected as being
from the minor/passive role claimed
unfounded apart
for Quinn Barlo
by Quinn Barlo. The basic amount
was therefore reduced by 50 %.

(23)

(24)

(20) Claims for an attenuating circumstance based on co-
operation outside the 2002 Leniency Notice have been
rejected, since no particular circumstances have occurred
which would justify such a measure. Indeed, all coop-
eration
exclusively
been
evaluated under the 2002 Leniency Notice.

companies

has

the

by

second undertaking

the
Lucite was
the
requirements of point 21 of
the Leniency Notice as
mentioned above and qualified, therefore, under point
for a
23 (b), second indent of
reduction of between 20 %-30 % of the fine. Lucite was
awarded a reduction of 30 % of the fine.

the Leniency Notice,

to meet

Immunity under point 23

Lucite’s evidence enabled the Commission to extend the
cartel from 28 February 2001 until 12 September 2002.
In accordance with point 23 of the Leniency Notice, this
period of
the infringement related to facts previously
unknown to the Commission which had a direct
bearing on the duration of the suspected cartel. Lucite’s
evidence for this period was therefore not used against it
for the purposes of setting the amount of the fine.

APPLICATION OF THE 2002 LENIENCY NOTICE

Point 23 (b), third indent (reduction of up to 20 %)

Immunity — Point 8a

(21) Degussa was the first to inform the Commission of the
existence of a cartel on 20 December 2002. On 27
January 2003 the Commission granted Degussa condi-
immunity from fines in accordance with point
tional
15 of
the Leniency Notice. Degussa has co-operated
fully, on a continuous basis and expeditiously throughout
the Commission’s administrative procedure and provided
the Commission with all evidence available to it relating
to the suspected infringement. Degussa ended its invol-
vement in the suspected infringement no later than the
time at which it submitted evidence under the Leniency
Notice and did not take steps to coerce other under-
takings
infringement. Hence,
in the
Degussa qualified for a full immunity from fines.

to participate

Reduction of fine — Point 23 (b), first indent (reduction of
30-50 %)

(22) Atofina was

the

first

to meet

undertaking

the
requirements of point 21 of the Leniency Notice, as it
provided the Commission with evidence which represents
to the evidence
significant added value with respect
already in the Commission's possession at the time of
to the Commission’s knowledge,
its submission and,
Atofina terminated its involvement in the infringement
no later than the time at which it submitted the evidence
and its involvement has remained terminated. It qualified
therefore, under point 23 (b), first indent, for a reduction
of 30 %-50 % of the fine that would otherwise have been
imposed. Atofina was awarded a reduction of 40 % of
the fine

(25)

ICI applied for leniency on 18 October 2004, after the
Commission had received leniency submissions from
Degussa (20 December 2002), Atofina (3 April 2003)
and Lucite (11 July 2003).

(26)

(27)

to the Leniency Notice,

Pursuant
the Commission
examined ICI’s submission in the chronological order in
which submissions have been made to evaluate whether
it constitutes significant added value within the meaning
of point 21. Based on these criteria the Commission
the evidence submitted by ICI did
informed ICI
not
value within the
meaning of the Leniency Notice.

significant

represent

added

that

CLOSURE OF PROCEEDINGS

the Oral Hearing,

In view of the elements brought forward by the under-
takings in their replies to the Statement of Objections
and at
the Commission decided
firstly to drop objections against all undertakings in
relation to the MMA part of the infringement, secondly
to drop objections against BASF AG, Repsol YPF SA,
Repsol Quimica SA, Repsol Brønderslev A/S and Repsol
Polivar
SpA also in relation to PMMA-moulding
compounds, PMMA-solid sheet and PMMA-sanitaryware,
thirdly to drop objections against Quinn Barlo Ltd,
Quinn Plastics NV, Quinn Plastics GmbH, Quinn
Plastics SA in relation to PMMA-moulding compounds
and lastly to drop objections against Quinn Plastics SA in
relation to PMMA-solid sheet.

22.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 322/23

DECISION

(28) The addressees of the Decision and the duration of their

involvement were as follows:

(29)

Following the above recitals, the following fines were
imposed:

(a) Degussa AG, Röhm GmbH & Co. KG and Para-

Chemie GmbH: EUR 0;

(a) Degussa AG, Röhm GmbH & Co. KG (the former
Agomer GmbH and Röhm GmbH) and Para-Chemie
GmbH, from 23 January 1997 until 12 September
2002;

(b) Altuglas

International SA, Altumax Europe SAS,
Arkema SA (formerly Atofina SA) and Elf Aquitaine
SA, from 23 January 1997 until 12 September 2002
and Total SA from 1 May 2000 until 12 September
2002;

(c)

ICI PLC from 23 January 1997 until 1 November
1999;

(d) Lucite International Ltd and Lucite International UK
Ltd from 2 November 1999 until 12 September
2002; and

(e) Quinn Barlo Ltd (formerly Barlo Group plc), Quinn
Plastics NV (formerly Barlo Plastics NV) and Quinn
Plastics GmbH (formerly Barlo Plastics GmbH) from
30 April 1998 until 21 August 2000.

jointly

(b) Arkema SA, Altuglas International SA and Altumax
liable: EUR
Europe SAS,
219,13125 million; of
this amount Total SA is
jointly and severally liable for EUR 140,4 million
and Elf Aquitaine SA is jointly and severally liable
for EUR 181,35 million;

and severally

(c)

ICI PLC: EUR 91,40625 million;

(d) Lucite International Ltd and Lucite International UK
Ltd, jointly and severally liable : EUR 25,025 million;
and

(e) Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn
jointly and severally liable: EUR 9

Plastics GmbH,
million.

(30) The undertakings listed above were ordered to bring to
an end immediately the infringement referred to in recital
3, insofar as they had not already done so and to refrain
from repeating any act or conduct described in recital 3,
and from any act or conduct having an identical or
similar object or effect.