Summary of Commission Decision of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) (notified under document number C(2007) 4257 final)
Date: 2009-02-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, competition law, dominant position, exchange of information, haberdashery, metal product, plastics

C 47/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2009

Summary of Commission Decision

of 19 September 2007

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty

(Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners)

(notified under document number C(2007) 4257 final)

(Only the English, French and German versions are authentic)

(2009/C 47/08)

On 19 September 2007, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the
EC Treaty. 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. A non-confidential
version of the decision is available on the Competition Directorate General website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/index.html

1. INTRODUCTION

Statement of Objections was notified in March 2006. An
oral hearing was held in July 2006.

(1) The decision was addressed to A. Raymond Sarl (hereafter
‘A. Raymond’), Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (here-
after ‘Berning’), Coats Holdings Ltd, Coats Deutschland
‘Coats group’), Scovill Fasteners Inc.,
GmbH (hereafter
Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A.
(hereafter ‘Scovill group’),
William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, Prym Inovan GmbH &
Co. KG, Éclair Prym Group S.A. (hereafter ‘Prym group’),
YKK Corporation Japan, YKK Holding Europe B.V.,
YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH (hereafter ‘YKK group’) and
Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik (here-
after ‘VBT’).

(2) The products concerned by the four separate infringements
were zip fasteners, other metal and plastic fasteners (here-
inafter ‘other fasteners’) and attaching machines. Each of
the four infringements covered the whole territory of the
Community.

2. CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1. Procedure

2.2. Summary of the infringement

(4) The Commission discovered evidence that the undertakings
had taken part in one or several single and continuous
infringements of Article 81(1) of the Treaty.

2.2.1. Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer

cooperation

(5) This cartel

the Scovill
involved A. Raymond, Berning,
group, the Prym group, the YKK group and the association
VBT and ran from 24 May 1991 until at least 15 March
2001. During this period the above undertakings agreed
among other things on coordinated price increases in
annual ‘price rounds’ and exchanged confidential informa-
tion on prices and the implementation of price increases
fasteners’ and their attaching
with respect
machines. This collusion took place in the framework of
the work circles organised by the trade association VBT.

to ‘other

(3) The findings in this Decision arise out of

inspections
carried out by the Commission in November 2001
pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation 17 at the premises
several producers of hard and soft haberdashery
of
products. These
investigative
measures by the Commission triggered applications from
Prym group, Coats group and YKK group for immunity or
reduction of
leniency
programme. A first Statement of Objections was notified
to the parties in September 2004 and a supplementary

the Commission's

fines under

and other

inspections

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

2.2.2. Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym

group and the YKK group

(6) This cartel involved the Prym group and the YKK group
and ran from 13 August 1999 until at least 13 January
2003. During this period the two leading manufacturers
in Europe fixed prices on a
of
product-by-product and country-by-country basis and allo-
cated customers with respect to ‘other fasteners’ and their
attaching machines.

fastening products

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/9

2.2.3. Cartel 3: The

tripartite
YKK group, the Coats group and the Prym group

cooperation between the

(7) This cartel involved the YKK group, the Coats group and
the Prym group and ran from 28 April 1998 until at least
12 November 1999. During this period the three manufac-
turers of zip fasteners met on a number of occasions to
exchange price information and to discuss price increases.
The three undertakings also agreed on a methodology to
set minimum prices for zip fasteners in Europe.

2.2.4. Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats

group and the Prym group

(8) This cartel involved the Coats group and the Prym group
and ran for more than 21 years, from 15 January 1977
until at least 15 July 1998. The products concerned by the
cartel were zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’. During the
period of infringement the two undertakings shared the
market for haberdashery, namely by preventing the Coats
group from entering the market for ‘other fasteners’.

2.3.2. Differential treatment

(12) Within the category of very serious infringements,

the
scale of likely fines makes it possible to apply differential
treatment to undertakings in order to take account of
differences in their effective economic capacity to cause
significant damage to competition.

2.3.2.1. Car tel 1: The Baseler-Wupper taler and

Amsterdamer cooperation

(13) The undertakings were divided into two different cate-
gories according to their relative importance in the market.
The YKK group and the Prym group were placed in a first
category and the Scovill group, A. Raymond and Berning
in a second category.

2.3.2.2. Car tel

2:

The

cooperation
between the Pr ym group and the YKK
group

bilateral

2.3. Fines

(14) In view of their relative importance in the market, both
the YKK group and the Prym group were placed in the
same category.

(9)

In fixing the amount of the fines, the Commission took
into account the gravity and duration of the infringements,
as well as the existence of aggravating and/or attenuating
circumstances.

(10) The association VBT was, however, considered separately
given its specific role as an association of undertakings
which performed different tasks and made different deci-
sions from the parties to the agreements and considering
that VBT's participation in the cartel arrangements was
limited primarily to its role as secretariat for the Baseler
and Wuppertaler work circles and facilitator of the price
arrangement between the cartel members
(which are
addressees of
this decision as well). The Commission,
therefore, considered it appropriate to impose a symbolic
fine on VBT of EUR 1 000 for its participation in the
infringement
Baseler-Wuppertaler
(Cartel 1), in accordance with point 5(d) of the Guidelines
on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant
to
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the
ECSC Treaty (1) (hereafter ‘the Guidelines on fines’).

and Amsterdamer

2.3.1. Gravity

(11) Taking into account the nature of the infringements, their
likely impact on the market and their geographical scope,
four infringements
the Commission concluded that all
should be qualified as very serious.

(1) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3.

(15) In setting the starting amount for the two undertakings,
the level of the starting amount imposed on the same
undertakings in relation to Cartel 1 was taken into consid-
eration. The bilateral infringement (Cartel 2) ran partly in
parallel with the multilateral infringement (Cartel 1) on the
same product markets and constituted an arrangement by
which the two leading manufacturers reinforced their
cooperation to achieve incremental effects on the relevant
markets.

2.3.2.3. Car tel

3:

The

cooperation
between the YKK group, the Coats group
and the Pr ym group

tr ipar tite

(16) The undertakings were divided into three different cate-
gories according to their relative importance in the market.
The YKK group was placed in a first category, the Coats
group in a second category and the Prym group in a third
category.

2.3.2.4. Car tel

4:

The

cooperation
between the Coats group and the Pr ym
group

bilateral

(17) In view of

the nature of

this infringement it was not
appropriate to apply any differential treatment to the two
undertakings concerned.

C 47/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2009

2.3.3. Sufficient deterrence

(18) In order to set the amount of the fine at a level which
ensures a sufficiently deterrent effect,
the Commission
considered it appropriate to apply a multiplication factor
to the fines imposed.

(19) With its worldwide turnover the YKK group is a much
larger player than the other addressees. Accordingly, the
Commission considered it appropriate to multiply the
fines for the YKK group.

2.3.4. Increase for duration

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

2.3.5. Attenuating circumstances

(21) In line with point 28 of the Commission notice on immu-
nity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (1)
(hereafter ‘2002 Leniency Notice’),
the applications for
immunity and/or leniency concerning Cartels 1 and 2
were assessed under that notice, whereas the applications
concerning Cartels 3 and 4 were assessed under
the
Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of
fines in cartel cases (2) (hereafter ‘1996 Leniency Notice’).

(22) Unlike point 23 of the 2002 Leniency Notice, the 1996
Leniency Notice does not provide for any specific reward
to a leniency applicant
that discloses facts previously
unknown to the Commission and affecting the gravity or
therefore appropriate to
duration of
is
the cartel.
consider any such cooperation under
the attenuating
factors.

It

(23) As the Coats group and the YKK group provided the
Commission with facts previously unknown to the
Commission, which permitted the Commission to establish
the entire duration of Cartel 3 (tripartite zip infringement),
the two undertakings qualified for an attenuating factor
justifying a reduction of the basic amount of the fine to be
imposed on the two undertakings for this infringement.

2.3.6.1. Car tel

3:

The

cooperation
between the YKK group, the Coats group
and the Pr ym group

tr ipar tite

(25) In accordance with Section D of the 1996 Leniency Notice
and in view of the Coats group's and the Prym group's
level of cooperation, both undertakings were granted a
35 % reduction of the fine that would otherwise have been
imposed for this infringement if they had not cooperated
with the Commission. The YKK group was, however, not
granted any reduction of the fine under the 1996 Leniency
Notice.

2.3.6.2. Car tel

4:

The

cooperation
between the Coats group and the Pr ym
group

bilateral

(26) In accordance with section C of the 1996 Leniency Notice
and in view of the Prym group's extensive and substantial
cooperation, the undertaking was granted a reduction of
75 % of the fine that would otherwise have been imposed
for this infringement if it had not cooperated with the
Commission.

2.3.7. Application of the 2002 Leniency Notice: reduction of

fines

(27) With respect to Cartels 1 and 2 the addressees of the Deci-
sion cooperated with the Commission for the purpose of
in the
receiving
2002 Leniency Notice.

favourable

treatment

set out

the

2.3.7.1. Car tel 1: The Baseler-Wupper taler and

Amsterdamer cooperation

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

(28) The evidence submitted by the Prym group represented
significant added value with respect to the evidence already
the
in the Commission's possession,
Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-compe-
titive practices. The Prym group was the first undertaking
to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was
granted a 30 % reduction of the fine.

strengthening

2.3.6. Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice: reduction of

fines

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

(24) With respect to Cartels 3 and 4 the addressees of the Deci-
sion cooperated with the Commission for the purpose of
receiving
in the
1996 Leniency Notice.

favourable

treatment

set out

the

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.2002, p. 3.
(2) OJ C 207, 18.7.1996, p. 4.

(29) The evidence submitted by the YKK group represented
significant added value with respect to the evidence already
in the Commission's possession,
the
Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-compe-
titive practices. The YKK group was the second under-
taking to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and
was granted a 20 % reduction of the fine.

strengthening

26.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/11

2.3.7.2. Car tel

2:

The

cooperation
between the Pr ym group and the YKK
group

bilateral

Point 8(b) — Immunity

(30) The Prym group's submission enabled the Commission to
find an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty. Hence,
the Prym group qualified for full immunity from the fine.

notably minimum, average and target prices, to monitor
price increases through the regular exchanges of price lists
and frequent bilateral contacts, and to allocate customers
by not undercutting each other's offers to clients:

(a) William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 13 August 1999

to 13 January 2003;

(b) Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 13 August 1999

to 13 January 2003;

(c) YKK Corporation Japan,

from 13 August 1999 to

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

13 January 2003;

(31) The evidence submitted by the YKK group represented
significant added value with respect to the evidence already
in the Commission's possession,
the
Commission's ability to prove the facts of the anti-compe-
titive practices. The YKK group was the first undertaking
to meet point 21 of the 2002 Leniency Notice and was
granted a 40 % reduction of the fine.

strengthening

3. DECISION

Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation

(32) The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of

the
Treaty by agreeing, for the periods indicated, on coordi-
nated price increases and by exchanging confidential infor-
mation on prices and the implementation of price
increases:

(a) A. Raymond Sarl, from 24 May 1991 to 1 December

1999;

(b) Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG, from 24 May

1991 to 19 August 2000;

(c) Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A., from 24 May 1991 to

15 March 2001;

(d) Scovill Fasteners Inc.,
15 March 2001;

(d) YKK Holding Europe B.V., from 13 August 1999 to

13 January 2003;

(e) YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, from 13 August 1999

to 13 January 2003.

Cartel 3: The tripartite cooperation between the YKK group, the
Coats group and the Prym group

(34) The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the
Treaty, for the periods indicated, by exchanging price infor-
mation, by discussing prices and price increases between
themselves, and by agreeing on a methodology to fix
minimum prices for standard products:

(a) YKK Corporation Japan,
12 November 1999;

from 28 April 1998 to

(b) YKK Holding Europe B.V.,

from 28 April 1998 to

12 November 1999;

(c) Coats Holdings Ltd.,
12 November 1999;

from 28 April 1998 to

(d) Coats Deutschland GmbH,

from 28 April 1998 to

12 November 1999;

from 31 December 1996 to

(e) William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 28 April 1998

to 12 November 1999;

(e) William Prym GmbH & Co. KG, from 24 May 1991 to

(f) Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 28 April 1998 to

15 March 2001;

12 November 1999;

(f) Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 1 August 1994

(g) Éclair Prym Group S.A., from 13 January 1999 to

to 15 March 2001;

12 November 1999.

(g) YKK Corporation Japan,

from 1 March 1997 to

15 March 2001;

(h) YKK Holding Europe B.V.,

from 1 March 1997 to

15 March 2001;

(i) YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH, from 24 May 1991 to

15 March 2001;

(j) Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik,

from 24 May 1991 to 19 August 2000.

Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym group and
the YKK group

Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats group and
the Prym group

(35) The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of the
Treaty, for the periods indicated, by agreeing to share the
haberdashery market by preventing Coats Group from
entering the market for ‘other fasteners’:

(a) William Prym GmbH & Co. KG,

from 15 January

1977 to 15 July 1998;

(b) Prym Inovan GmbH & Co. KG, from 1 August 1994

to 15 July 1998;

(33) The following undertakings infringed Article 81 of

the
Treaty by agreeing, for the periods indicated, to fix prices,

(c) Coats Holdings Ltd., from 15 January 1977 to 15 July

1998.

C 47/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2009

(36) For the infringements referred to above, the following fines

were imposed:

Cartel 1: The Baseler-Wuppertaler and Amsterdamer cooperation

(a) A. Raymond Sarl: EUR 8 325 000;

(b) Berning & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG: EUR 1 123 000;

(c) Scovill Fasteners Europe S.A. and Scovill Fasteners Inc.,

jointly and severally liable: EUR 6 002 000;

(d) William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan
liable:

and severally

jointly

GmbH & Co. KG,
EUR 24 913 000;

(e) YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH: EUR 68 250 000, of
which YKK Corporation Japan and YKK Holding
Europe B.V.
for
are
EUR 49 000 000;

jointly and severally liable

(f) Fachverband Verbindungs- und Befestigungstechnik:

EUR 1 000.

Cartel 2: The bilateral cooperation between the Prym group and
the YKK group

(a) YKK Corporation Japan, YKK Holding Europe B.V. and
jointly and severally

YKK Stocko Fasteners GmbH,
liable: EUR 19 500 000.

Cartel 3: The tripartite cooperation between the YKK group, the
Coats group and the Prym group

(a) YKK Corporation Japan and YKK Holding Europe B.V.,

jointly and severally liable: EUR 62 500 000;

(b) Coats Holdings Ltd. and Coats Deutschland GmbH,

jointly and severally liable: EUR 12 155 000;

(c) William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan
GmbH & Co. KG,
liable:
jointly
EUR 6 727 500, of which Éclair Prym Group S.A. is
jointly and severally liable for: EUR 5 850 000.

and severally

Cartel 4: The bilateral cooperation between the Coats group and
the Prym group

(a) William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Inovan
liable:

and severally

jointly

GmbH & Co. KG,
EUR 8 897 500;

(b) Coats Holdings Ltd.: EUR 110 250 000.

(37) The undertakings listed above shall immediately bring to
an end their infringement, insofar as they have not already
done so. They shall refrain from repeating any act or
conduct as the infringement found in this case, and from
any act or conduct having the same or similar object or
effect.