Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Polyurethane Foam

(AT.39801)

(2014/C 354/06)

On 15 November 2012, the European Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) against Carpenter Co., Carpenter S.A.S., Carpenter GmbH, Carpenter Belgium NV and Carpenter Limited (‘Carpenter’), Vita Cayman Limited, Caligen Europe BV, Draka Interfoam B.V., ICOA France S.A.S., Koepp Schaum GmbH, Metzeler Schaum GmbH, Tramico S.A.S., UAB Vita Baltic International, Vita Polymers Poland Sp. z o.o., Veenendaal Schaumstoffwerk GmbH, Vita Cellular Foams (UK) Limited and Vita Industrial (UK) Limited (‘Vita’), Eurofoam GmbH, Eurofoam Deutschland GmbH Schaumstoffe, Eurofoam KFM GmbH, Eurofoam Hungary Kft, Eurofoam Polska Sp. z o.o. and S.C. Eurofoam S.r.l. (‘Eurofoam’), Recticel N.V./S.A., Recticel s.a.s., Recticel OÜ, Recticel Limited, Recticel Verwaltung GmbH & Co. KG and Recticel B.V. (‘Recticel’), and Greiner Holding AG (‘Greiner’), (together ‘the parties’).

Following settlement discussions and settlement submissions in accordance with Article 10a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (3), on 23 October 2013 the European Commission adopted a Statement of Objections (‘SO’) addressed to the parties, stating that they had participated in one single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The infringement concerned a cartel in the sale of specific types of flexible polyurethane foam and covered ten Member States. It was aimed at passing on increases in raw material prices to end customers and avoiding aggressive price competition between the polyurethane foam producers with regard to customers. The cartel lasted from October 2005 until July 2010.

The parties' respective replies to the SO confirmed that the SO addressed to them reflected the contents of their settlement submissions.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views, and I have come to a positive conclusion.

In view of the above, and taking into account that the parties have not addressed any requests or complaints to me (4), I consider that the effective exercise of the procedural rights of all the parties in this case has been respected.

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

(4)  Under Article 15(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU, parties to the proceedings in cartel cases which engage in settlement discussions pursuant to Article 10a of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, may call upon the hearing officer at any stage during the settlement procedure in order to ensure the effective exercise of their procedural rights. See also paragraph 18 of Commission Notice 2008/C 167/01 on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ C 167, 2.7.2008, p. 1).