1 / 7

Overview of the 2013 Wire Harnesses Cartel Decision by the European Commission

The 2013 European Commission decision imposed a €141 million fine on companies involved in wire harness cartels, including a 10% settlement reduction. This decision marked the seventh settlement regarding five separate infringements involving major automotive suppliers like Sumitomo, Yazaki, and Leoni. The investigation revealed single and continuous infringements as well as bid rigging. The fines were calculated based on the last full business year preceding the end of the infringements, emphasizing direct sales in the EEA.

olwen
Télécharger la présentation

Overview of the 2013 Wire Harnesses Cartel Decision by the European Commission

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2013 Wire HarnessesCommission Decision Eric Van Ginderachter Director, Cartels Directorate, European Commission

  2. WH Decision - Overview • € 141 million fine, including 10% settlement reduction • 7th settlement decision • Five Separate Infringements: • Toyota (Sumitomo, Yazaki, Furukawa), Honda (idem), Nissan (Sumitomo and Yazaki), Renault I (Sumitomo and SYS), Renault II (idem + Leoni) • No single overarching scheme • Different participants (companies and individuals) • Two types of infringements: • Single and continuous infringements – Toyota and Honda • Single bid cartels – Nissan, Renault I and Renault II

  3. WH – value of sales calculation • Principle – Fining Guidelines 2006 • VoS = last full business year preceding the end of the infringement • In practice: Toyota infringement (Sumitomo and Yazaki) • Duration: 03/2000 to 08/2009 • Last BY - 04/2008 to 03/2009 • WH case - Single and continuous infringements • Last full BY – not representative of the harm of the cartels • In practice: average of the 3 last BY • average VoS around >30 %

  4. WH – VoS calculation • Principle – Fining Guidelines 2006 VoS = last full business year preceding the end of the infringement • WH case – Single bid cartels – Lack of registered sales • Lead time • Unsuccessful collusion

  5. WH – VoS calculation • No registered sales (lead time) – Nissan infringement • Participants - Sumitomo and Yazaki • Duration: 10/2006 to 12/2006 - registered sales only post infringement in 2010 → VoS = € 0 • Calculation: estimates of the yearly volume of WH at the time of the quotation X winning bid • In practice: 1000 WH estimate X Yazaki winning bid of €110 = € 110 000

  6. WH – VoS calculation • No registered sales (unsuccessful collusion) – Renault II infringement • Participants - Sumitomo, SYS and Leoni • Only Leoni got part of the business • Calculation: estimates of the yearly volume of WH at the time of the quotation X winning bid of Leoni + equally apportioned between the three participants • In practice:1000 WH estimate X Leoni winning bid of €120 = € 120 000 / 3 = € 40 000 each

  7. WH – VoS calculation • Direct vs. Indirect sales • Direct sales – sale and delivery in EEA Ex: WH sold and delivered to Toyota Belgium • Indirect sales – sale and delivery outside EEA – transformation into another product – sale and delivery in EEA Ex: WH sold and delivered to Toyota Japan – car build in Japan – imported and sold in EEA • Commission's fines calculated only on the basis of direct sales

More Related