This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52008XX0913(01)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 417th meeting on 23 October 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 417th meeting on 23 October 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 417th meeting on 23 October 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams
SL C 235, 13.9.2008, p. 2–2
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
13.9.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 235/2 |
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 417th meeting on 23 October 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.907 — Steel beams
(2008/C 235/02)
1. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the applicability of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty despite its expiry. |
2. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. |
3. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and geographic market affected by the cartel in the draft decision. |
4. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's finding that the principle of ‘ne bis in idem’ does not forbid the adoption of the present decision. |
5. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, in particular with reference to imputation of liability to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) as economic successor to Arbed SA's activities in steel beams. |
6. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's finding that the limitation period has not expired, neither with regard to Arcelor Luxembourg SA (ex-Arbed SA) nor with respect to Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA (ex-ProfilArbed SA) nor Arcelor International SA (ex-TradeArbed SA). |
7. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
8. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on taking into account — by way of exceptional circumstances — that the Commission has already taken a position on the amount of the fine for Arbed SA, which the Court of First Instance reduced to EUR 10 million in its judgment in Case T-137/94. |
9. |
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
10. |
The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
11. |
The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account ail the other points raised during the discussion. |