EC cement cartel probe data request quashed by Europe’s top court

A group of leading cement makers has won a battle with the European Commission over excessive data requested by the Commission for a cartel investigation. As part of the near-five-year-probe closed in mid-2015 due to insufficient evidence, the Commission had visited the companies and later asked them to complete a questionnaire, while suspecting them of possibly restricting imports into the EU, and divvying up markets and coordinating prices. In 2014, companies including Lafarge, Holcim, Cemex, Heide
March 11, 2016 Read time: 2 mins

A group of leading cement makers has won a battle with the European Commission over excessive data requested by the Commission for a cartel investigation.

As part of the near-five-year-probe closed in mid-2015 due to insufficient evidence, the Commission had visited the companies and later asked them to complete a questionnaire, while suspecting them of  possibly restricting imports into the EU, and divvying up markets and coordinating prices.

In 2014, companies including 725 Lafarge, 680 Holcim, 643 Cemex, 674 HeidelbergCement, 1451 Buzzi Unicem and 2842 Italmobiliare asked the EU General Court for this demand to be annulled, saying that the Commission was asking for too much information and in a 'burdensome format'. The General Court refused and upheld the Commission's position.

But yesterday The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Europe's highest court, set aside both the Commission's decision and the General Court's judgement. The General Court was wrong to find the Commission's decisions 'adequately reasoned', it said.

Questions sent to the companies were ruled to be "extremely numerous and cover very different types of information", and it was not possible to tell whether the information was needed for the investigation, the CJEU said.

When requesting information the Commission should set out the legal basis and purpose of the request, specify what information is required and fix a time-limit for it to be provided.

The CJEU said this is important in order to show that the request for information is justified but also to enable companies to judge the scope of their duty to cooperate and their rights of defence.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

November 11, 2013

The Battle of the UK’s controversial Aggregates Levy

Ever since its introduction, the Aggregates Levy has been controversial within the UK. Sarah-Jane Williams, of Stephens Scown LLP, explains why the controversy is still raging

The Aggregates Levy was introduced in the UK as part of the Finance Act 2001 and came into force in April 2002 and is a tax imposed upon the commercial exploitation of rock, sand and gravel in the UK.

The intention of the levy was to improve the environmental impact of the mining industry; encouraging use of secondary or recycle

November 27, 2015

Italian antitrust authority open probe into alleged price fixing by four cement makers

Italy's antitrust authority has opened an investigation into four cement makers for alleged price fixing and, with the tax police, has searched the offices of the companies, it said in a statement on Thursday.

The companies under investigation are Buzzi Unicem, Cementir Italia, Industria Cementi Giovanni Rossi and Holcim Italia, the watchdog said.

"The case concerns the possibility of an agreement ... to coordinate cement sales price increases," the antitrust authority added.

Holcim Italia, part of

April 30, 2014

FLSmidth penalty on former subsidiary upheld

In a company announcement to the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (No. 08-2014, 30 April 2014) the European Court of Justice has ruled that the penalty imposed on FLSmidth & Co in March 2012 is upheld at €14.45 million.

March 30, 2012

BAA wins aggregate tax battle

The British Aggregates Association (BAA) has announced that it has won the case against the exemption or derogation from the Aggregates Levy in Northern Ireland in the EU General Court. The Court agreed with the BAA that the Commission had not conducted a diligent investigation of the Northern Ireland exemption where operators pay £0.40 per tonne in levy compared to the £2.00 paid elsewhere in the UK or of the BAA's complaint. The court found that the Commission could not therefore lawfully decide that it w

boombox1

Highlighted Content

boombox2