Summary of Commission Decision of 8 September 2025 relating to a proceeding under Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40966 – Synthetic Turf (Procedure)) (notified under document number C(2025)5987)
Date: 2025-09-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: EU competition policy, anti-trust legislation, control of restrictive practices, disclosure of information, sanction (EU), sports facilities, subsidiary








C_202600694EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/694


30.1.2026






Summary of Commission Decision
of 8 September 2025
         
relating to a proceeding under Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
(Case AT.40966 – Synthetic Turf (Procedure))


(notified under document number C(2025)5987)


(Only the English version is authentic)
(C/2026/694)


On 8 September 2025, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 23(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
          (1)
In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Regulation 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 secrets.

1.   INTRODUCTION









(1)


The Decision is addressed to Eurofield S.A.S.(France) and Unanime Sport S.A.S. (France) (together referred to as ‘the parties’).












(2)


The Decision imposes a fine on the parties for having submitted an incomplete reply to a request for information adopted by the Commission by decision of 16 October 2023 pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (‘the Article 18(3) request’).




2.   CASE DESCRIPTION

2.1.   Procedure









(3)


On 13 November 2024, the Commission informed the parties that it had opened an investigation under Case AT.40966 – Synthetic Turf (Procedure) into the suspected provision of an incomplete reply to the Article 18(3) request.












(4)


On 12 December 2024, the parties informed the Commission of their willingness to engage in cooperation discussions. Subsequently, four cooperation meetings were held between the Commission and the parties on 12 March 2025, 21 March 2025, 2 April 2025 and 11 April 2025, respectively.












(5)


On 2 July 2025, the parties submitted to the Commission a formal request to cooperate (‘the cooperation submission’). In their cooperation submission, the parties unequivocally acknowledged liability for the alleged infringement and confirmed their willingness to pay a fine.












(6)


The Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) under the cooperation procedure on 23 July 2025, outlining its preliminary findings on the alleged infringement. On 5 August 2025, the parties submitted their reply to the SO, confirming that it accurately reflected their cooperation submission.












(7)


The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 3 September 2025.












(8)


On 4 September 2025, the Hearing Officer issued its final report.




2.2.   Summary of the infringement









(9)


On 16 October 2023, the Commission adopted the Article 18(3) request, which was notified to Eurofield by the Commission on 17 October 2023. The Article 18(3) request followed up on an earlier Commission request for information pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, adopted on 6 June 2023 (‘the Article 18(2) request’).












(10)


Eurofield’s reply to the Article 18(3) request was incomplete, as it omitted three emails and nine SMS-messages which the Commission considers falling within the scope of the Article 18(3) request. The Commission was aware of the omission of the documents either because they had been seized during the unannounced inspections conducted in June 2023 or because they were referenced in documents submitted by Eurofield itself in its reply to the Article 18(3) request.












(11)


The Commission considers that the omission of the three emails and nine SMS-messages occurred at least negligently. Eurofield’s claim that this omission is due to a human error does not alter this finding. In fact, Eurofield was aware that the Commission had concerns about the completeness of its reply to the Article 18(2) request. Moreover, to remove any doubt on the part of Eurofield regarding the scope of the Article 18(3) request, the Commission explicitly clarified the type of documentation, including its format, that was covered by the Article 18(3) request.












(12)


In light of the above circumstances, Eurofield should have acted with utmost care when preparing and providing its reply to the Article 18(3) request, taking due account of the Commission’s repeated clarifications regarding the scope of the Article 18(3) request.












(13)


Unanime is held jointly and severally liable for the infringement in its capacity as the ultimate parent of Eurofield at the time of the infringement, which, by virtue of its 100 % shareholding, was in a position to exercise decisive influence over the conduct of its subsidiary.




2.3.   Remedies and fines

2.3.1.   Basic amount of the fine









(14)


In fixing the basic amount of a fine, pursuant to Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, regard shall be had by the Commission both to the gravity and to the duration of the infringement. In this case, the Commission considers that the infringement was serious in nature and committed at least negligently.












(15)


Fines for providing an incomplete reply to a request for information pursuant to Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 must be sufficiently deterrent to ensure that it does not pay off for companies to take the risk of a procedural fine to avoid a potentially high fine for having breached the substantive provisions of EU competition law.












(16)


Requests for information are one of the main investigative tools used by the Commission to gather information in antitrust investigations and their effectiveness depends on the undertakings concerned providing complete and accurate responses. Therefore, omitting several pieces of information that are within the scope of a Commission request for information can seriously hamper the Commission’s ability to effectively investigate alleged anti-competitive conduct.












(17)


The infringement was instantaneous and has therefore no duration.












(18)


Based on the elements above, the Commission considers it justified to impose a fine of EUR […] (2), which corresponds to 0,3 % of the 2024 turnover of the single economic entity that Eurofield belonged to at the time of the infringement.




2.3.2.   Adjustments to the basic amount









(19)


In this case, the Commission has decided to reward the parties for their proactive cooperation once they were made aware of the investigation into their suspected procedural breach.












(20)


In light of these particular circumstances, the basic amount of the fine is reduced by 30 % and the final amount of the fine to be imposed pursuant to Article 23(1)b of Regulation No 1/2003 is EUR 171 994.




3.   CONCLUSION









(21)


In light of the above, the Decision concludes that the final amount of the fine to be imposed pursuant to Article 23(1)(b) of Regulation No 1/2003 on Eurofield and Unanime Sport, which are jointly and severally liable for the infringement, amounts to EUR 171 994.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/1/oj) (hereinafter ‘Regulation No 1/2003’).

(2)  
            Parts of this text have been edited to ensure that confidential information is not disclosed. Those parts are replaced by a non-confidential summary in square brackets or are shown as [
...
].



ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/694/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)