Brussels, 30/09/2009 (Agence Europe) - The decision by Hoechst, charged with participating in a cartel, not to dispute the facts, should have brought a reduction of the fine imposed on it, the Court of First Instance has ruled (cases T-161/05, T-168/05, T-174/05 and T-175/05). In a judgment delivered on Wednesday 30 September, the Court says that Hoechst, by not challenging the allegations levelled against it by the European Commission at the end of 2004, made the Commission's task easier, even though it did not of its own volition bring additional evidence to the investigation.
In January 2005, the Commission imposed fines on Akzo Nobel (Netherlands), Hoechst (Germany) and Atofina (France) - since rebranded as Arkema - for their participation in a cartel on the monochloroacetic acid (MCAA). Swiss company Clariant was granted immunity after informing of the existence of the cartel, which involved allocating volume quotas, market sharing and concerted price increases from 1984 to 1999 (see EUROPE 8870). The Court of First Instance, to which Hoechst referred its appeal against its €74.03 million fine, ruled that the German company ought to have had its fine reduced under the terms of the Commission communication on fine reduction in cartel cases, published in the Official Journal 1996, C207, p4. According to the terms of the communication, Hoechst's simply not disputing the charge made the procedure simpler for the Commission, so the fine imposed should be reduced by 10% to €66.63 million.
The Court of First Instance has already granted Hoechst a reduction in a fine imposed on it for participating in a cartel on the sorbates market (see EUROPE 9686). Sorbates are food preservatives. (C.D./transl.rt)