Acting on a proposal from Mr Van Miert, the Member of the Commission
responsible for competition policy, the Commission has decided:
- to impose fines totalling slightly over ECU 100 million on 14
companies (a list is attached);
- to prohibit restrictive practices which have been engaged in by
17 Community and Scandinavian producers and distributors of steel
beams.
A number of Community and Scandinavian companies and trade
associations were party to a series of agreements, decisions and
concerted practices which had as their object or effect the fixing
of prices, the sharing of markets and the large-scale exchange of
confidential information on the Community market in steel beams.
Some of these restrictive practices date back at least to 1984, and
some continued at least until inspections were carried out by
Commission staff in January 1991.
These practices are contrary to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty,
which bans all agreements between undertakings, decisions by
associations of undertakings and concerted practices tending
directly or indirectly to prevent, restrict or distort normal
competition within the common market, and in particular those
tending:
(a) to fix or determine prices;
(b) to restrict or control production, technical development or
investment;
(c) to share markets, products, customers or sources of supply.
The decision is a stern warning not just to steelmakers but to
industry as a whole. The Commission will not tolerate unlawful
agreements between companies aimed at fixing prices, sharing markets
or exchanging confidential information in defiance of the elementary
rules of competition and of the interests of the citizens of the
European Union.
I. THE RELEVANT MARKET
The products concerned in these proceedings 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 in the Commission Decision as "beams". They
are finished hot-rolled long products which are mainly used in the
construction industry. They are ECSC products under the terms of
Article 81 of the ECSC Treaty.
In the period up to 1990 the production of beams in the Community
grew markedly:
Production in the Community
(in '000 t)
1984 4 769
1985 5 218
1986 6 508
1987 6 618
1988 7 580
1989 7 944
1990 8 003
Production in 1990 in '000 t
Germany 1 552 923
Belgium 357 879
France 571 734
Italy 926 494
Luxembourg 1 189 903
United Kingdom 1 770 252
Spain 1 336 744
Portugal 20 810
Ireland 276 636
TOTAL 8 003 375
In 1989 the ten most important of the companies concerned supplied
two thirds of the apparent consumption of beams in the ECSC; their
deliveries amounted to almost 4 million tonnes.
II. INSPECTIONS
Information on these infringements was assembled in inspections
which the Commission carried out at the companies' offices in 1991,
when copies were taken of a large number of documents. The parties
put forward their views at a hearing held in Brussels from 11 to
14 January 1993.
III. THE PRACTICES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
Exchanges of information between companies took place at numerous
meetings of Eurofer's "Poutrelles Committee", which regularly
distributed documents concerning the monitoring of the market for
beams, and in other meetings and contacts between two or more
companies separately. Twenty companies or associations of companies
engaged in these practices over variable periods between 1984 and
1991. Three different types of infringement have been identified.
Exchange of confidential information
The companies kept one another regularly informed of orders and
deliveries by exchanging their own figures. The object was to rig
the market, as is made repeatedly clear in papers found on their
premises.
"Market interpenetration was reported. Everyone wants a return to
traditional delivery flows."
Market sharing
Several documents found in the companies' offices demonstrate the
existence of agreements aimed at sharing deliveries.
A firm "agrees with the percentages [the allocation to Eurofer
suppliers]. However, the basis must be ... tonnes/month".
If sales were to depart from the market estimates established, "the
Eurofer administration will contact the company in question to ask
it to pursue a policy that is more conducive to the necessary
equilibrium".
Price fixing
There is abundant documentation from the companies' offices to show
that there was collusion on prices.
"The short-term objective of the meeting on 3 June should however be
to set binding prices for beams for the third quarter of 1987." The
minutes of a Eurofer meeting in 1989 state that the prices
"envisaged" for the first quarter had been obtained on several
Community markets.
IV. THE DECISION
. The 17 companies and Eurofer have taken part in restrictive
practices which must be brought to an end immediately.
. Fines are imposed on 14 companies.
Eurofer was involved in certain infringements, but the ECSC Treaty
does not allow fines to be imposed on associations: the members
who engaged in unlawful practices must be penalized individually.
The fines imposed on the 14 companies have been set in accordance
with practice under the EEC Treaty, where fines can range up to
10% of a firm's turnover in the relevant product. The level of
the fines imposed takes account of the gravity and duration of the
infringement and of the benefit derived from it. The Commission
bore in mind the current difficulties in the steel industry, and
in determining the duration of the infringement it left out of
consideration the period of "manifest crisis" from 1980 to 1988.
Mr Van Miert said that the same attitude would be taken towards any
other industry where such practices took place. The difficulties
being encountered should be resolved by means of structural
adjustment. Restrictive practices of the kind which had now been
condemned did nothing to improve structures or production
capacities, but instead helped to keep them out of step with demand.
IP 134 - ANNEX
LIST OF UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED
The following fines were imposed:
Arbed SA ECU 11 200 000
British Steel PLC ECU 32 000 000
Unimétal SA ECU 12 300 000
Saarstahl AG ECU 4 600 000
Ferdofin SpA ECU 9 500 000
Thyssen Stahl AG ECU 6 500 000
Preussag AG ECU 9 500 000
Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA ECU 4 000 000
Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL ECU 10 600 000
SA Cockerill Sambre ECU 4 000 000
NHM Stahlwerke GmbH ECU 150 000
Krupp Hoesch AG ECU 13 000
Inexa Profil AB ECU 600
Norsk Jernverk A/S ECU 750
No fines were imposed on:
Acciaierie e Ferriere Stefana F.lli fu Girolamo SpA
Eurofer
SSAB Svenskt Stål
Fundia Steel AB
* * *
