The Marine Hoses Cartel: Maurits Pino
The Marine Hoses Cartel: Maurits Pino
The Marine Hoses Cartel: Maurits Pino
CARTELS
Maurits Pino
Number 2 — 2009 53
Cartels
that all their bids would be above the price quoted the fines, the cartel was considered to have operated
by the champion. for more than 19 years, so the variable amount was
multiplied by up to 19.
Moreover the cartel members agreed on a number
of measures to facilitate the implementation of the There were no mitigating circumstances and no ag-
cartel: reference prices, quotas and sales conditions gravating circumstances (such as recidivism) other
backed up by penalties to compensate any cartel than leadership. The fines of two undertakings were
members who lost tenders which the cartel had al- increased because they played the leading role.
located to them to another member of the cartel.
Yokohama was the first undertaking to submit in-
The marine hoses cartel was, therefore, in many formation and evidence which opened the door for
ways a textbook example. In one important sense, the Commission to carry out a targeted inspection in
however, it was different. An ex-employee of one of connection with the alleged cartel. The fine imposed
the undertakings involved in the cartel performed on Yokohama was reduced by 100 %. Manuli was
the role of coordinator. Cartel members communi- granted a 30 % reduction. Parker ITR’s and Bridge-
cated with the coordinator regularly by fax, e-mail stone’s contributions were not considered as being
and, sometimes, telephone for each new tender. The of ‘significant added value’. Therefore the Commis-
coordinator gave members market share reports, sion did not grant these two companies any reduc-
market development reports and specific instruc- tion of their fine.
tions on their bids. In addition, the coordinator se-
lected a ‘champion’ for each contract. This ‘cham- 6. Decision
pion’ would win the tender, while other members of
the cartel would submit ‘cover bids’ so as not to give The following fines were imposed (with the duration
away the cartel. of the infringement indicated in brackets):
• Bridgestone Corporation (1 April 1986 to
5. Remedies 2 May 2007): EUR 58.5 million, of which
EUR 48.1 million jointly and severally with
Under the 2006 Guidelines on fines (4), when deter-
Bridgestone Industrial Limited (19 December
mining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed,
1989 to 2 May 2007).
the Commission starts from the value of the under-
taking’s sales of the goods or services to which the • Yokohama Rubber Company Limited, immunity
infringement relates in the relevant geographic area applicant (from 1 April 1986 to 1 June 2006):
within the EEA. EUR 0.
The Commission calculates the fines to be imposed • Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd (12 December 1997
on each undertaking concerned on the basis of the to 2 May 2007): EUR 18 million, of which
value of sales of each. As this was a worldwide car- EUR 16 million jointly and severally with Conti
tel and EEA sales do not reflect the strength of the Tech AG (28 July 2000 to 2 May 2007), of which
different parties, it is appropriate, in line with Point EUR 7.1 million jointly and severally with Conti-
18 of the Guidelines on fines, to apply the world nental AG (9 March 2005 to 2 May 2007).
market share of each undertaking to the total sales
within the EEA. The criteria that were considered to • Trelleborg Industrie SAS (1 April 1986 to
determine the percentage of the undertakings’ sales 2 May 2007): EUR 24.5 million, of which
were the nature of the infringement, the combined EUR 12.2 million jointly and severally with Trel-
market share of the cartel members, the geographic leborg AB (28 March 1996 to 2 May 2007).
scope of the cartel and the degree to which the car-
tel was implemented. On this basis, the percentage • Parker ITR Srl (1 April 1986 to 2 May 2007):
for the variable amount and the additional amount EUR 25.61 million, of which EUR 8.32 million
(‘entry fee’) was set. jointly and severally with Parker Hannifin Cor-
poration (31 January 2002 to 2 May 2007).
Although the cartel lasted from April 1986 to May
2007, a period of two years of only limited activity • Manuli Rubber Industries SpA (1 April 1986 to
on the part of the cartel was excluded when calculat- 1 August 1992 and 3 September 1996 to 2 May
ing the fines. Therefore, for the purpose of setting 2007): EUR 4.9 million.
54 Number 2 — 2009