OpenLegislation

Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2) — Raw tobacco — Spain (notified under document number C(2004) 4030) (Only the Spanish, English and Italian texts are authentic) (2007/236/EC) (revoked) in Wales

EU Decision 2007/236 · Adopted 20 October 2004 · Extends to United Kingdom

Original text. legislation.gov.uk does not revise this item, so later amendments are not shown here. Changes made to it are listed under each provision when known.

Commission Decision

of 20 October 2004

relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty

(Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2) — Raw tobacco — Spain

(notified under document number C(2004) 4030)

(Only the Spanish, English and Italian texts are authentic)

(2007/236/EC) (revoked)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On 20 October 2004, the Commission adopted a Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the Decision, including any penalties imposed, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. A non-confidential version of the full text of the decision can be found in the authentic languages of the case and in the Commission's working languages at DG COMP website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html

Annotations to the whole text

Textual amendments

F1

Decision revoked (31.12.2020) by The Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/93), reg. 1(1), Sch. 3 para. 2 (as amended by S.I. 2020/1343, reg. 34(3)); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)

Contents

  1. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION Repealed
  2. 1INTRODUCTION Repealed
  3. 2ORIGIN OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURE Repealed
  4. 3PARTIES Repealed
  5. 3.1Processors’ side Repealed
  6. 3.2Producers’ side Repealed
  7. 4THE SECTOR CONCERNED: SPANISH RAW TOBACCO Repealed
  8. 5THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Repealed
  9. 5.1The CMO for raw tobacco Repealed
  10. 5.2National legislation Repealed
  11. 6PRACTICES ADDRESSED IN THE DECISION Repealed
  12. 6.1The processors’ cartel Repealed
  13. 6.2The producers’ cartel Repealed
  14. 7LEGAL ASSESSMENT Repealed
  15. 8LIABILITY OF DELTAFINA AND THE MOTHER COMPANIES OF WWTE AND AGROEXPANSIÓN Repealed
  16. 9FINES Repealed
  17. 9.1Gravity of the infringement Repealed
  18. 9.2Individual weight and deterrence Repealed
  19. (i)As far as the processors’ cartel (to include Deltafina) is concerned, the Commission considers that fines should be scaled down in consideration of the contribution to the illegal conduct of and the market position enjoyed by each party involved. Repealed
  20. (ii)Concerning the producer representatives’ behaviour, the Decision concludes that only a symbolic fine is appropriate for the following reasons. Repealed
  21. 9.3Duration of the infringement Repealed
  22. 9.4Aggravating circumstances Repealed
  23. 9.5Attenuating circumstances Repealed
  24. 9.6Upper limit to the fine Repealed
  25. 9.7Application of the 1996 Leniency Notice Repealed

SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1INTRODUCTIONF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2ORIGIN OF THE CASE AND PROCEDUREF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3PARTIESF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1Processors’ sideF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2Producers’ sideF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4THE SECTOR CONCERNED: SPANISH RAW TOBACCOF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORKF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.1The CMO for raw tobaccoF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2National legislationF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6PRACTICES ADDRESSED IN THE DECISIONF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1The processors’ cartelF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2The producers’ cartelF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7LEGAL ASSESSMENTF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8LIABILITY OF DELTAFINA AND THE MOTHER COMPANIES OF WWTE AND AGROEXPANSIÓNF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9FINESF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.1Gravity of the infringementF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.2Individual weight and deterrenceF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(i)As far as the processors’ cartel (to include Deltafina) is concerned, the Commission considers that fines should be scaled down in consideration of the contribution to the illegal conduct of and the market position enjoyed by each party involved.F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(ii)Concerning the producer representatives’ behaviour, the Decision concludes that only a symbolic fine is appropriate for the following reasons.F1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.3Duration of the infringementF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.4Aggravating circumstancesF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.5Attenuating circumstancesF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.6Upper limit to the fineF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.7Application of the 1996 Leniency NoticeF1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .