Decision 517/2011 | |
---|---|
File (PDF) | Decision 517/2011 |
Date of Publication of Decision | March, 3rd, 2011 |
Government Gazette Issue No | |
Relevant Market |
Pumice stone |
Subject of the Decision |
Anti-competitive agreements, Abuse of Dominant Position |
Legal Framework |
Article 1 & 2 L. 3959/2011 |
Operative part of the Decision |
Finding an infringement |
Complainant(s) |
ELSIMET S.A |
Respondent(s) |
1. LAVA Mining & Quarrying SA 2. Heracles General Cement Company S.A. |
Summary of Decision |
Following the complaint of the company “ELSIMET S.A” (currently ELKETEK SA) against the company “LAVA Mining & Quarrying SA” (“LAVA” or alleged) and its parent company “Heracles General Cement Company S.A” (“AGET” or alleged) for infringement of articles 1 & 2 of former L. 703/1977, the HCC, taking into consideration all evidence provided, decided that LAVA had and still has essential economic power (as a dominant company) in the market of pumice stone (stone wash) in total, while the fidelity discounts led LAVA’s customers to depend to LAVA for a significant part of their needs, as they were “forced”, given various discounts offered, to buy the whole portfolio of the relevant products, to the extent that a significant part of their needs was covered by the dominant company LAVA. Moreover, the business plan, formed in 1990, and finally adopted at the end of 1992, to absorb the Italian market, had anti-competitive effects in the relevant market, as AGET’s market share in the pumice stone market (stone wash) rose from around 10 -15% during the period 1987-1992 to about 50% between 1992-1995. All the above violations (abuses and concerted practices) extend to the entire Greek and Italian territory (possibly and the European territory). Furthermore, the Commission, taking into account the nature and particularities of the case and in particular the long period since the infringements took place (31.12.1995) and the fact that the products in the relevant market, as defined above, are of little to minimal demand and exercising its wide discretion, it decided that it should refrain from imposing a fine on LAVA for the aforementioned infringements. It therefore decided unanimously the following:
|
Judicial Means | Appeal. |
Decisions by the Court of Appeal of Athens (Administrative Division) | ACAA 3793/2012, Council of State 1976/2015 |