Summary of Commission Decision of 8 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams (notified under document number C(2006) 5342 final)
Date: 2006-11-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fine, iron and steel industry, iron and steel product, price agreement, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice

C 235/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.9.2008

Summary of Commission Decision

of 8 November 2006

relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams

(notified under document number C(2006) 5342 final)

(Only the French version is authentic)

(2008/C 235/04)

On 8 November 2006, the Commission re-adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the
ECSC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, 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 interests. A non-confidential
version of the full text of the decision can be found in the authentic languages of the case and in the Commission's
working languages at DG COMP website at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html

SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

4.

The addressees of the Decision participated in a single and
continuous infringement contrary to Article 65(1) of the
ECSC Treaty, covering the whole of
the EC by fixing
prices, allocating markets and exchanging confidential
information in the steel beams industry from at least
1 July 1988 to 16 January 1991.

1.

2.

and concerted practices

The addressees of this Decision participated in a series
of
contrary to
agreements
the ECSC Treaty in the steel beams
Article 65(1) of
industry. The Decision addresses co-operation between
TradeArbed SA, certain European producers of
steel
beams and certain of
their associations. The infringe-
ment's main features included price fixing, allocation of
information
in a large scale, exchange of
quotas, and,
concerning the European steel beams industry.

The case concerns the re-adoption of the Commission
Decision (1) following the judgement of 2 October 2003
by the Court of
Justice in Case C-176/99 P, Arbed v
Commission (2) where the ECJ annulled the CFI judgement
(T-137/94) (3) and on procedural grounds the Commis-
sion decision, insofar as it concerned Arbed SA. The facts
and the substance of the decision are based on the find-
ings of the earlier Commission decision with the excep-
tion of objections that were dismissed by the CFI.

ADRESSEES AND DURATION OF THE INFRINGEMENT

3.

The Decision is addressed to three legal entities, belonging
to one undertaking, group Arcelor:

— Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA),

— Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA),

— Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA).

(1) Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 (OJ L 116,

6.5.1994, p. 1).

(2) Case C-176/99 P, Arbed SA v Commission [2003] ECR I-10687.
(3) Case T-137/94, Arbed SA v Commission [1999] ECR II-003063.

BACKGROUND

5.

6.

7.

In the mid-1970s the European steel industry underwent
a crisis characterised by a fall in demand giving rise to
excess
supply and low prices. Between 1980 and
July 1988, the Commission imposed a system of manda-
tory production quotas for steel beams and for other steel
products. At the end of the quota system, the Commis-
sion set up a surveillance system involving the collection
of statistics on productions and deliveries, monitoring of
market developments and regular consultation with the
various undertakings in the steel sector. The surveillance
system came to an end on 30 June 1990.

In January 1991, the Commission carried out inspections
at
the offices of certain undertakings involved in the
production of steel beams and associations of the under-
takings.

The Commission sent a Statement of Objections to a
number of undertakings on 6 May 1992 and held oral
hearings at the beginning of 1993. On 16 February 1994,
the Commission adopted a decision (4) by which it found
that 14 European steel undertakings and one of
their
trade associations, Eurofer, had participated in a series of
agreements, decisions and concerted practices designed to
fix prices, share markets and exchange confidential infor-
mation on the EC market for steel beams, in breach of
the ECSC Treaty. Altogether fourteen
Article 65(1) of
infringements committed
undertakings were fined for
between 1 July 1988 and the end of 1990.

(4) OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1.

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/5

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

In April 1994, Arbed, and nine other undertakings and
Eurofer brought actions before the CFI
for annulment
and/or reduction of the fines imposed. In 1999, the CFI
in the main (in Case T-137/94), upheld the Commission
fines (1).
decision. However
Following this judgement, Arbed together with seven
other undertakings and Eurofer brought actions before
the ECJ claiming that the Court should set aside the judge-
ments by the CFI.

reduced the individual

it

On 2 October 2003, the European Court of Justice (in
Case C-176/99 P, Arbed v Commission) dismissed the
appeals brought by Eurofer and six other undertakings (2).
However, the appeal brought by Arbed was fully granted.

The ECJ annulled in its entirety the CFI judgement and the
Commission decision in so far it concerns Arbed. The ECJ
found that Arbed's rights of defence had been infringed
during the administrative procedure. The Commission
decision imposing fines was addressed to Arbed, while the
Statement of Objections had been sent to TradeArbed,
Arbed's subsidiary, and had not indicated that fines might
be imposed on Arbed. Moreover, Arbed had been denied
a right of access to the file as the Statement of Objections
was not addressed to it.

It is held that none of the addressees can seek application
of the limitation period. It is considered that the suspen-
sion of the limitation period does not only apply to the
legal entity which is a party to the proceedings of an
appeal
(ex-Arbed SA) but to all the companies which
make up the economic undertaking presided over by
Arbed SA, that includes the other addressees.

PROCEDURE

Following the judgement of 2 October 2003 by the ECJ,
the Commission decided to re-open the procedure as
regards Arbed SA and issued a Statement of Objection on
8 March 2006 correcting the procedural error which
consisted in addressing the annulled decision to Arbed SA,
which was not an addressee of the original Statement of
Objections of 6 February 1992.

The Statement of Objections was addressed to Arcelor
Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA), Arcelor International SA
(ex-TradeArbed SA) (3), the wholly-owned subsidiary of
Arbed SA,
and to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA
(ex-ProfilArbed SA), the economic successors of the steel
beams activities of Arbed SA.

14. All three companies responded to the Statement of Objec-
tions on 20 April 2006. In their replies, none of the three
companies contest the facts or their legal appreciation by
the CFI as retained in its judgement T-137/94 and repro-
duced by this decision. No oral hearing was held in this
case.

15.

The Commission considers that it is competent to adopt
this decision. Such competence arises from the succession
the
within a single legal
framework of Article 81 of
EC Treaty as a lex generalis and Article 65 of
the
ECSC Treaty as a lex specialis, at the time of the expiry of
the latter treaty.

THE STEEL BEAMS INDUSTRY

16.

17.

18.

case

concerned in the present

The products
are
wide-flanged beams and other I, H, and U sections with a
diameter of 80 mm and more (with the exception of
mine frame sections). These products are together referred
to as ‘beams’. They are finished hot-rolled long products
which are mainly used in the construction industry.
Beams
are ECSC products within the meaning of
Article 81 of the ECSC Treaty.

The cartel covered the whole of the Community. The size
of
last
complete year of the infringement was EUR 2,54 billion.

the steel beams market

in the EC in 1990,

FUNCTIONING OF THE CARTEL

The co-operation between European producers and distri-
butors of beams and some of their associations proceeded
on different
the most
important forum for this co-operation was the meetings
of a group know as the ‘Poutrelles Committee’, one of the
committees of Eurofer.

levels. On a community level,

19. Apart from the meetings of the Poutrelles Committee,
undertakings and associations of undertakings also meet
or met, on a more irregular basis, to discuss the markets
of
individual Member States, namely Italy, France and
Germany, and to co-ordinate their behaviour on these
markets.

20.

21.

In addition,
market sharing and/or price fixing arrangements.

some companies entered into individual

and

associations

undertakings

Finally,
under-
takings from the Community regularly met their counter-
parts from Norway, Sweden and Finland at the so-called
‘Eurofer/Scandinavia’ meetings where the Scandinavian
meetings markets were discussed.

of

(1) Arbed's fine was reduced from EUR 11 200 000 to EUR 10 000 000.
(2) The appeal brought by Aristrain Madrid was partly granted, and
referred back to the CFI to determine the appropriate level of the fine.
(3) Following the creation of Arcelor as a result of the merger between
Arbed, Aceralia and Usinor in 2002, TradeArbed SA has changed name
to Arcelor International.

FINES

22.

The Decision maintains the fine at
defined by the CFI in its judgement in Case T-137/94.

the same level as

C 235/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.9.2008

23.

24.

25.

Therefore, in applying the guidelines on fines in force at
the time of the decision, a theoretical calculation of the
fine is undertaken, the total amount of which is reduced,
for exceptional circumstances, to the amount decided by
the CFI, namely EUR 10 million.

The size of the steel beams market in the EC in 1990, last
complete year of the infringement was EUR 2,54 billion.
The infringement is therefore considered very serious and
thus, according to the guidelines on fines, the starting
amount of the fine must be above EUR 20 million.

26.

27.

28.

In the present case, there are no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.

The level of 10 % of the total turnover of the group is
not reached, so no adjustment of the fine is necessary.

Finally, due to exceptional circumstances,
i.e. the judge-
ment of the Court of First Instance which reduced the
initial amount of the fine to EUR 10 million, the final
amount of the fine is reduced to EUR 10 million.

DECISION

The infringement lasted between July 1988 and January
1991, which represents a period of two and a half years.
Consequently, it is considered appropriate to increase the
starting amount of the fine by 25 %.

29. A fine of EUR 10 million is hereby imposed on Arcelor
Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA), Arcelor International SA
(ex-TradeArbed SA) and Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA
(ex-ProfilArbed SA) jointly and severally.