Brussels, 09/07/2008 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 8 July, the Court of First Instance rejected the appeal by several companies active in the plasterboard sector. The fines imposed by the Commission in 2002 were upheld for all the members of a cartel, with the exception of BPB, which had its punishment reduced by 10% by the Court for the information it gave on the cartel.
In November 2002, it was found that the companies Gyproc, Lafarge, BPB and Knauf had, between 1992 and 1998, had been involved in illegal conduct, which consisted of exchanges of information relating to sales volumes, concerted action on price increases, and meetings with a view to sharing out or stabilising the markets in the plasterboard sector. These anticompetitive activities affected the markets in Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the Benelux countries between 1992 and 1998. After taking each company's circumstances into account, the Commission imposed fines of €138.6 million on BPB, €85.8 million on Knauf, €249.6 million on Lafarge and €4.32 million on Gyproc (which was only involved between 1996 and 1998). The four companies appealed to the Court of first Instance to have their fines reduced.
The Court upheld the fines imposed on Gyproc, Lafarge and Knauf. However, it found that the reduction in the fine on BPB ought to have been greater than it had, in fact, been. BPB only provided information at the request of the Commission, but this information went beyond what had been asked, and was able to strengthen the Commission's arguments against the cartel to a considerable degree. The Court, then, granted BPB a further 10% reduction, bringing its fine down to €118.8 million.
The Commission welcomed the judgment, particularly since it supported several of the points made in the investigation, including: - there is no general right to access to other parties' replies to the Commission's Statement of Objections; - that a cartel operating in several states in the European Economic Area can be considered as one single infringement; - and that the Commission assessment of the responsibility of the parent companies is valid. (C.D./transl.rt)