17.4.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/5

(1)

On 22 November 2017, the Commission adopted a Decision relating to four single and continuous infringements of Article 101 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The infringements consisted of price coordination and market sharing in respect of sales of occupant safety systems for passenger cars to a number of Japanese car manufacturers active in the EEA.

(2)

The products concerned by these infringements are passive safety systems such as seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels. These are key devices designed to increase the protection of occupants of a vehicle in case of collision.

(3)

This Decision is addressed to Tokai Rika (2), Takata (3), Autoliv (4), Toyoda Gosei (5) and Marutaka (6) (the ‘Parties’).

(4)

Following the immunity applications under the terms of the 2006 Leniency Notice, of Tokai Rika, in February 2011, in respect of a cartel in the supply of seatbelts to Toyota and of Takata, in March 2011, in respect of infringements regarding the supply of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels to various car manufacturers, including Toyota and Suzuki, in June 2011 the Commission carried out unannounced inspections under Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 at the premises of Autoliv in Germany. On 4 July 2011, Autoliv submitted a leniency application. On 12 November 2013, Toyoda Gosei submitted a leniency application.

(5)

On 4 April 2016, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 against the Parties with a view to engaging in settlement discussions with them.

(6)

On 26 September 2017, the Commission adopted a statement of objections addressed to the Parties. All of the Parties replied to the statement of objections by confirming that it reflected the contents of their settlement submissions and that they remained committed to following the settlement procedure.

(7)

The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions issued a favourable opinion on 20 November 2017.

(8)

The Commission adopted this Decision on 22 November 2017.

(9)

The four separate infringements all concern the supply of occupant safety systems components for passenger cars in the EEA. The scope of the infringements is as follows:

(10)

Tokai Rika, Takata and Autoliv colluded on prices and the allocation of supply of seatbelts to Toyota. The discussions covered the maintenance of commercial rights, collusion on certain requests for quotation (RFQs), exchanges of commercially sensitive information and coordination on Toyota's periodical requests for price reviews/cost reductions, and inquiries related to raw material cost increases. The contacts took place via email exchanges, face-to-face meetings or phone meetings.

(11)

Marutaka was present at and facilitated meetings between Takata and Tokai Rika and it was in contact with both Tokai Rika and Autoliv on behalf of Takata in order to exchange competitively sensitive information and organise meetings.

(12)

Takata, Toyoda Gosei and Autoliv colluded on sales of airbags to Toyota. The discussions covered the maintenance of commercial rights, coordination on certain RFQs, exchanges of commercially sensitive information and coordination on Toyota's periodical requests for price reviews/cost reductions. The contacts took the form of email exchanges, telephone calls and meetings, and occurred most often on a bilateral basis and on occasion, the contacts involved all three competitors.

(13)

Takata and Tokai Rika colluded on sales of seatbelts to Suzuki. The collusion covered the maintenance of commercial rights, the coordination on certain RFQs, exchanges of commercially sensitive information and coordination on periodical requests for price reviews. The contacts took place via email exchanges, face-to face-meetings or phone meetings.

(14)

Takata and Autoliv colluded with respect to sales of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels to Honda. The discussions covered project allocation (respecting ‘incumbent's rights’), exchanges of pricing information, exchanges of (and in some cases, coordination on) prices for raw materials and exchanges of commercially sensitive information on cost reductions. The contacts took place via email exchanges, face-to-face meetings or phone meetings.

(15)

The duration of the participation of each party in the infringements was as follows:

Table

(16)

Liability for Infringements I and III is imputed to Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.

(17)

Liability for Infringements I, II, III and IV is imputed to Takata Corporation.

(18)

Liability for Infringements I, II and IV is imputed jointly and severally to Autoliv Japan Ltd as the direct acting entity and Autoliv, Inc. as the parent company.

(19)

Liability for Infringement II is imputed to Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

(20)

Liability for Infringement I is imputed to Marutaka Co., Ltd.

(21)

The Decision applies the 2006 Guidelines on fines (7).

(22)

In Infringement I, the value of sales is calculated on the basis of the yearly average of sales of seatbelts in the EEA destined for Toyota vehicles during the infringement period. Marutaka does not have any EEA sales, as it is active as TAKATA's distributor in Japan only. Considering its role as facilitator in this infringement, Marutaka's value of sales was estimated on the basis of (i) the other Parties' value of sales in the EEA of seatbelts destined for Toyota vehicles; and (ii) their global turnover. The result was then reduced, in consideration of Marutaka's more limited role as a facilitator.

(23)

In Infringement II, the value of sales is calculated on the basis of the yearly average of sales of airbags in the EEA destined for Toyota vehicles during the infringement period.

(24)

In Infringement III, the value of sales is calculated on the basis of the yearly average of sales of seatbelts in the EEA destined for Suzuki vehicles during the infringement period.

(25)

In Infringement IV, the value of sales is calculated on the basis of the sales of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels in the EEA destined for Honda vehicles during the infringement period.

(26)

Considering the nature of the infringements and their geographic scope, the percentage for the variable amount of the fines as well as the additional amount (‘entry fee’) is set at 17 % of the value of sales for the infringements.

(27)

The variable amount is multiplied by the number of years or by fractions of the year respectively of the Parties' individual participation in the infringement(s). The increase for duration is calculated on the basis of days.

(28)

There are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances in this case.

(29)

There is no need to adjust the basic amount of the fine for the purposes of deterrence in this decision.

(30)

None of the fines calculated exceed 10 % of the respective undertaking's total turnover in 2016.

(31)

Tokai Rika was the first to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice in Infringement I. Tokai Rika is thus granted immunity from fines for Infringement I.

(32)

Moreover, Tokai Rika was the first undertaking to meet the requirements of points 24 and 25 of the 2006 Leniency Notice as regards Infringement III. Tokai Rika is therefore granted a reduction of 46 % of the fine for Infringement III.

(33)

Takata was the first to submit information and evidence meeting the conditions of point 8(a) of the 2006 Leniency Notice in Infringements II, III and IV. Takata is thus granted immunity from fines for Infringements II, III and IV.

(34)

Moreover, Takata was the first undertaking to meet the requirements of points 24 and 25 of the 2006 Leniency Notice as regards Infringement I. Takata is therefore granted a reduction of 50 % of the fine for Infringement I.

(35)

Autoliv was the first undertaking to meet the requirements of points 24 and 25 of the 2006 Leniency Notice as regards Infringements II and IV and the second undertaking to meet the requirements of points 24 and 25 of the Leniency Notice as regards Infringement I. Autoliv is therefore granted a reduction of the fine of 30 % for Infringement I and of 50 % for Infringements II and IV.

(36)

Autoliv was the first party to submit compelling evidence in the sense of point 25 of the 2006 Leniency Notice that enabled the Commission to extend the duration of Infringements I, II and IV. In accordance with point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the mentioned durations are not taken into account when setting the fine for Autoliv for Infringements I, II and IV.

(37)

Toyoda Gosei was the second undertaking to meet the requirements of points 24 and 25 of the Leniency Notice as regards Infringement II. Toyoda Gosei is therefore granted a reduction of 28 % of the fine for Infringement II.

(38)

Toyoda Gosei was the first party to submit compelling evidence in the sense of point 25 of the 2006 Leniency Notice that enabled the Commission to extend the duration of Infringement II. In accordance with point 26 of the 2006 Leniency Notice, the Commission will not take the mentioned duration into account when setting the fine for Toyoda Gosei for Infringement II.

(39)

As a result of the application of the Settlement Notice, the amount of the fines to be imposed on each Party was reduced by 10 %. The reduction was added to their leniency reward.

(40)

The following fines were imposed pursuant to Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003: