日本経済新聞　2007/12/3

EU、カルテル摘発強化　日本企業に制裁金１１３０億円　今年、１２社合計　高まる独禁法リスク

　欧州連合(EU)が価格カルテルの摘発を強め、日本企業が巨額の制裁金支払いを迫られている。日本経済新聞の集計では２００７年に制裁金を科された日本企業(欧州子会社を含む)は計１２社で、合計額は約６億９８００万ユーロ(約１１３０億円)に上る。EU市場に進出する日本企業にとって独占禁止法上のリスクが高まってきた。
　EUの市場統合を進める欧州委員会は独禁法違反に厳罰主義で臨み、公正な市場競争を確保する政策を強めている。クルス委員は「消費者を欺く価格操作は絶対に許さない」と強調、価格カルテルの摘発に重点的に取り組む考えだ。米マイクロソフトの独禁法違反に絡んだ訴訟で欧州委が命じた巨額の制裁金の妥当性が支持され、今後は厳罰主義にさらに拍車がかかるという見方もある。
　０７年に欧州委が命じたカルテル制裁金は総額３０億ユーロを超え、これまで年間最高だった０６年の約１８億４６００万ユーロをすでに大幅に上回る。特に目立つのは日本企業へのカルテル制裁だ。摘発された企業数は米国の３社に対し日本は１２社。日本企業の制裁金は全体の２２%を占める。

算出方式に死角
　９月下旬にはYKKグループに日本企業で過去最大となる約１億５千万ユーロの制裁金を命じた。ファスナーなどで同業他社と最低販売価格などを設定したとされる。YKKは「承服しがたい」としており、提訴も視野に対応を検討している。一方で同社と並んで深く関与したとされる独プリムグループの制裁金はわずか約４干万ユーロ。欧州委の調査への協力で制裁金が大幅に減額された。
　欧州委は効率的にカルテル摘発を進めるため企業に告発や情報提供を促す。その見返りが制裁金の軽減。EUの独禁法ルールに詳しくない日本企業は不利な立場に置かれる。反対に調査妨害には厳格な対応が取られる。ソニーは業務用ビデオテーブのカルテルで制裁金額を３０%上積みされた。調査時に従業員が質問への回答を拒んだためと指摘される。
　制裁金の算出方式の違いも日本企業にとって死角。独禁法違反があった対象分野の売上高が課徴金の基準となる日本と違い、EUでは対象企業の世界総売上高の１０%が制裁金の上限と定められている。たとえEU市場での販売額が少なくても、カルテルにかかわれば巨額の制裁金を科せられるリスクがある。

「すみ分け」断罪
　制裁金支払いを命じられた日本企業の間には撤回を求めて実際に提訴する動きが出てきた。送電設備で国際カルテルを結んだとされた三菱電機、日立製作所、東芝などは欧州委と法廷で争う。「欧州では送電設備を販売しておらず、法律違反の認識はない」という。
　だが欧州委は「(日本企業と独シーメンスなどの世界的な)販売市場すみ分けがEUの価格競争をゆがめた」(報道官)と判定した。EUの独禁法ルールの国際標準化を狙う欧州委は日本企業などにもEU法令の順守を迫る。日本企業はルールの違いを前提に欧州事業に取り組む必要がある。

日本企業に対する制裁金額(2007年、単位は万ユーロ)
�@YKKグループ　15,025
�A日本板硝子（ピルキントン)　14,000
�B三菱電機　11,858
�C東芝　　9,090
�D旭硝子(AGCフラットガラス)　6,500

EUのカルテル制裁の対象先(2007年の金額ぺ一ス、日本企業の欧州子会社を含む)
　EU(22社)　　61.2%
　日本(12社)　22.0
　米国(3社)　 12.0
　スイス(1社)　 4.6

November 21, 2007　WSJ

EU Fines Japanese Firms For Videotape Price Fixing

The European Commission imposed fines totaling Euro75 million ($110 million) on Japanese companies Sony Corp., Fujifilm Holdings Corp. and Hitachi Maxell Ltd. for fixing prices in the European professional-videotape market.

The companies were caught raising and controlling prices from 1999 to 2002 through regular meetings, according to the commission, the European Union's executive arm. Sony faces the biggest fine, Euro47.1 million, for allegedly obstructing the investigation.

"Obstructing a commission's antitrust investigation leads to severe penalties," said EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.

The other companies' penalties were reduced because they cooperated with the probe. Fuji received a fine of Euro13.2 million after a 40% reduction for cooperating with the regulator, while Maxell's fine was reduced by 20% to Euro14.4 million.

These are the first fines handed out under the commission's new guidelines for cartels, which aim to encourage cooperation and hand out harsher punishments for obstructions and repeat offenders. The fines are capped at 10% of annual global sales.

The commission said the cartel was active in the two most popular professional-videotape formats at the time, Betacam SP and Digital Betacam, which in 2001 had combined annual sales of about Euro115 million in Europe.

The three companies, with a combined market share of more than 85%, had 11 separate meetings that resulted in three successful price increases in the professional-videotape market.

The commission started the investigation with surprise inspections at the offices of the three companies' European units in May 2002.

"We are very disappointed by the conduct described in the announcement, which involved a small number of employees located in Europe," Sony said in a statement.

Sony disagreed with the commission's view that it had obstructed the investigation.

"The incidents in question were inappropriate and regrettable, but did not amount to obstruction and had no material impact on the commission's investigation," Sony said.

Sony said it is committed to complying with competition rules and added that since the cartel investigation, it has reinforced its antitrust compliance policies and training. Fujifilm couldn't be reached for comment. Hitachi Maxell said it "will carefully examine the European Commission's reasoning" before deciding on next steps.

日本経済新聞　2007/12/7

YKK、欧州委提訴へ　ファスナー価格カルテル制裁金　243億円、減額求める

　ファスナーやボタンなどで国際的な価格カルテルを結んでいたとして欧州連合(EU)の欧州委員会から巨額の制裁金支払いを命じられていたYKKは６日、決定を不服として提訴する方針を固めた。カルテル行為が欧州に限られていたことなどを理由に制裁金の減額を要求するとみられる。価格カルテルの摘発を強めるEUに対しては三菱電機、日立製作所なども提訴に踏み切っており、同様の動きが日本企業の間に広がる可能性がある。
　YKKが支払いを命じられた制裁金は１億５０２５万ユーロ(約２４３億円)。欧州委が日本関連企業に科した制裁金としては日本板硝子の英子会社ピルキントンに対する約１億４千万ユーロを上回り過去最高。７日にも、ルクセンブルクの欧州司法裁判所(第一審裁)に提訴する。
　YKKを含む日米欧７社・団体は９月に、欧州委から総額３億２８６４万ユーロの制裁金支払い命令を受けた。このうちYKKは１９９１−２００１年と９８−９９年にそれぞれボタンなどの価格引き上げを狙ったカルテルに関与、９９−０３年には競合他社との間で顧客や市場をすみ分ける市場分割によるカルテルに加担したとされ、７社・団体の中で最大の制裁金を科された。
　欧州委が主にカルテルに関与していたとするのはYKKの独子会社のYKKシュトッコ・ファスナーズ。９４年に資本参加し、９７年に全額出資の子会社とした。カルテルはYKKが資本参加する以前に始まり、完全子会社化した後も４年ほど続いていたもようだ。YKKは情報開示の不足などがあったとして、同子会社の旧オーナーに損害賠償請求をしている。
　同子会社は欧州だけで事業を展開しており、YKKはカルテル行為も欧州市場に限定されていたと判断。欧州委が国際的なカルテルを結んでいたとして巨額の制裁金を科したことを不服としているもようだ。
　さらに、日本ではカルテルがあった対象分野の売上高が課徴金の基準となるが、EUでは対象企業の世界総売上高の１０%が制裁金の上限とされる。YKKはグローバル化が進み企業規模が大きい分、制裁金が膨らんだ可能性がある。
　欧州委のルールでは、命令から３カ月以内に制裁金を支払う必要がある。YKKは０８年３月期決算で約２４０億円を特別損失で計上する予定。同社の０７年３月期の純利益は制裁金とほぼ同額の２４０億円。
　YKKの事業はファスナー・ボタンとサッシの二本柱。ファスナー・ボタンは世界７０カ国・地域で事業を展開、世界シェアは約４５%とされる。同部門の売上高は２５８６億円、営業利益は３９１億円。

巨額制裁金　不服提訴相次ぐ
　欧州連合(EU)が価格カルテルで制裁を強めるにつれ、企業が判定を不服として欧州司法裁判所に提訴するケースが相次いでいる。欧州委員会のトッド報道官は「最近では違反企業の多くが欧州委を相手取って訴訟を起こす」と話す。
　提訴が相次ぐのは、欧州委が価格カルテルに厳罰主義で臨み違反企業に科せられる制裁金が急増しているためだ。2005年の１社あたり制裁金は平均で約1700万ユーロ(約２７億６千万円)だったが、０６年は約3900万ユーロに増加。今年は総額で３３億ユーロを超え、１社平均で約７４００万ユーロに膨らんでいる。
　日本企業の欧州での売上高は北米やアジアに比べて小さい場合が多く、YKKでは中近東、アフリカを含めても連結売上高の１割にも満たない。全世界での売上高を基準に制裁金を決める欧州委に対する不満は強い。
　欧州司法裁によると、今年に入って価格カルテルで欧州委を提訴した日本企業は三菱電機、東芝など５社。いずれも送電設備カルテルで巨額制裁金を科せられた企業だ。欧州委は欧州企業との市場すみ分けがカルテルにあたると判定したが、日本企業は「そもそも欧州では送電設備を販売しておらず、事実認識が異なる」という立場だ。
　５日に合成ゴムの価格カルテルで制裁金を命じられた電気化学工業も「第一審裁への提訴も含めて対処する」とのコメントを発表した。
　欧州委は巨額制裁金を独禁法違反の抑止力と位置付けている。欧州市場に進出する日本企業にとって、独禁法上のリスクが高まるにつれて欧州委による厳罰主義と提訴という企業の対抗措置のせめぎ合いが続く見通しだ。


2007年にEUから制裁金支払いを命じられた日本企業(単位百万ユーロ)

2007/12/12 Bloomberg

EU Court Raises BASF Antitrust Fine in Vitamin Case

BASF AG's fine in a vitamin cartel case was increased to 35 million euros ($51.4 million) by a European Union court, the first time EU judges have raised a penalty imposed by antitrust regulators.

The European Court of First Instance　第一審裁判所, the EU's second- highest court, raised the fine against BASF, the world's largest chemical company, by 54,000 euros in a ruling in Luxembourg today. UCB SA, another company appealing its fine related to a conspiracy to boost the price of a livestock supplement, had its penalty cut by 8.5 million euros to 1.8 million euros today.

UCB's fine was cut 90 pct to 1.87 mln eur from 10.38 mln, BASF's fine was increased by 54,000 eur to 35.02 mln eur from 34.97 mln and Akzo Nobel's fine was held at 20.99 mln eur

A European court has never before increased a fine beyond the amount imposed by the European Commission, the Brussels- based antitrust regulator for the 27 EU nations. Former European Court of First Instance President Bo Vesterdorf said in May that EU courts should become more ``active'' and exercise their power to modify antitrust fines.

``This is an important precedent for cartel litigation,'' said Kurt Haegeman, a partner at Baker & McKenzie in Brussels. ``It's essential that companies think through their appeals strategy and try to eliminate any appeal points that may backfire, as happened in this case.''

The commission fined BASF, UCB and Akzo Nobel NV a total of 66.4 million euros on Dec. 9, 2004, for conspiring to boost the price of vitamin B4, a supplement for poultry and pigs. The court today upheld the regulator's 21 million-euro fine against Akzo.

Future Fines

``The court has not just upheld the fine against BASF, but actually increased it,'' Jonathan Todd, a commission spokesman, told reporters in Brussels today. ``Obviously, the commission will take this into account in setting future fines,'' he said.

``We will carefully review the reasons of the European court,'' said Michael Grabicki, a spokesman for BASF in Ludwigshafen, Germany. ``After that we'll decide whether to appeal to the Court of Justice.''

UCB's lawyer, Jean-Francois Bellis, said the court's reduction in his client's fine was ``very good.''

Akzo lawyer Christof Swaak said the court's ruling on the liability of a parent company in a cartel committed by its subsidiaries ``is disappointing.'' Arnhem, Netherlands-based Akzo contested the commission's decision to hold it responsible for its units' actions. The company will further study the judgment before deciding whether to appeal, said Heleen van de Lustgraaf, a spokeswoman for Akzo.

The companies were accused of colluding from 1992 to 1998, meeting in secret to boost prices for vitamin B4, agree on price increases and carve up shares of the market.

From 1992 to April 1994, the main North American （Bioproducts and DuCoa of the USA, Chinook of Canada）　and European producers of choline chloride met in secret to increase worldwide prices, allocate world markets and control competitors. The North American producers agreed to withdraw from Europe, in exchange for the European producers withdrawing from North America. Between March 1994 and October 1998, the European producers continued to meet and agreed prices and price increases for specific national markets in the EEA, allocated individual clients among themselves and agreed EEA-wide market shares.

As the North American companies ended their participation in the infringement in April 1994, they escaped fines, given that the first investigative action of the Commission took place more than five years later.

Two Cartels

The court upheld the appeals by BASF and UCB on the duration of the cartel, saying there had been two different cartels, one being a global cartel, the other a European cartel lasting from 1994 to 1998. It canceled the commission's decision to charge the companies for the time preceding 1994.

The court therefore recalculated the fines for both companies. BASF's amount was increased because it lost a reduction it had received for cooperating with the commission on the global cartel. The information BASF gave on the European cartel ``was only of minimum value,'' the court said today.

The court granted UCB a reduction in its fine for cooperating in the European investigation.

``This is a somewhat perverse result,'' said Georg Berrisch, a partner at the Brussels office of law firm Covington & Burling LLP. BASF successfully argued that the commission had made a mistake ``only to find out that it then receives less credit for its cooperation with the commission'' and gets a bigger fine.

Concrete Case

The risk of the court increasing a fine on appeal has so far largely been a theoretical one, said Haegeman at Baker & McKenzie. ``Now we can point to a concrete case in which it's happened.''

Companies ``need to be coherent in their pleadings before the court, and those made before the commission before, to avoid further fine increases,'' said Bellis, UCB's lawyer, who is with Van Bael & Bellis and also represented Microsoft Corp. in its appeal of a 497 million-euro antitrust fine.

``Where economic studies indicate that companies which appeal on average get a reduction in fines of almost 20 percent, this case highlights the risk of appeal,'' said Marc Hansen, a partner specializing in antitrust law at Latham & Watkins LLP in Brussels.

Still, the judgment is unlikely to stop appeals to the EU courts, say some lawyers. Julian Joshua, a lawyer who spent 27 years at the commission prosecuting cartels before joining Howrey LLP in Brussels, said the decision is a technical ruling.

Technical Point

``The court isn't saying the fine is too high or too low; it was a technical point,'' Joshua said. ``This doesn't yet show that the court is straining on the leash to increase the fines.''

The fines the commission is imposing under new competition guidelines ``risk being so high that companies will continue to seek a reduction from the court,'' said Covington & Burling's Berrisch.

The commission has levied a record 3.3 billion euros in penalties in cartel cases this year in industries ranging from glass to beer, compared with 1.85 billion euros in 2006.

Under EU law, European courts in Luxembourg have the authority to review the legality and factual basis of commission antitrust decisions. The courts have used their full discretion when ruling on a commission fine in only a few cases. In the past, companies have had no disincentive to appeal cartel fines since most penalties are reduced.

Top Court 　欧州司法裁判所（欧州連合における最高裁判所）

The EU's top court, the European Court of Justice, last year reinstated part of a price-fixing fine against SGL Carbon AG that had been reduced by the lower court. The company was over-credited for cooperating with cartel investigators, the court said in its June 2006 decision. Two months later the high court also raised a fine against U.K. construction-equipment maker JC Bamford Excavators Ltd. to 30.8 million euros, after the lower court had cut it to 30 million euros.

In today's case, North American producers that took part in the cartel escaped fines because they quit the arrangements in 1994, more than the statutory limit of five years before the EU probe began.

According to the commission, the five companies involved in the cartel controlled about 80 percent of the world market for the vitamin. In 1997, the global market for the supplement was about 180 million euros, according to the commission.

It was the second time in three years that the commission had targeted the vitamin industry. The EU regulator imposed a then-record 855 million euros in fines on BASF and seven other companies in 2001 for fixing prices on other vitamins. That was topped for the first time early this year, when the EU fined elevator and escalator makers 992.3 million euros.

The Court of First Instance in March 2006 reduced BASF's fine in the 2001 vitamin cartel by 20 percent, ruling that the commission had failed to prove the company's role as a cartel ringleader. The ruling cut the company's penalty to 236.9 million euros from 296.2 million euros.

The cases are T-101/05 BASF v Commission; T-112/05 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission; T-111/05 UCB v Commission.

2008/7/1　日本経済新聞夕刊

カルテル摘発　EU「示談制度」導入
　関与認めれば制裁金減額　法的手続きの簡素化狙う

　欧州連合(EU)の欧州委員会は３０日、企業の価格カルテルに絡んで新たに「示談制度」の導入を決めた。カルテル制裁の手続きに入る前に対象企業が関与を認めた場合、制裁金の１０%を減額する仕組み。EUは巨額制裁金でカルテルの抑止を狙うが、違反企業による提訴が急速に増えており、示談制度で法的手続きの簡素化や訴訟の負担軽減を進める。
　欧州委は早ければ週内に示談制度の運用を始める。EUの経済圏の拡大に伴って価格操作や市場分割などカルテルが増えると判断。法的手続きの簡素化や訴訟案件の減少を狙う。欧州委のクルス委員(競争政策担当)は示談制度について「カルテル摘発の処理が早まれば、新たな独禁法違反の調査を進める余地ができる」と語った。
　基本的な示談制度の枠組みは、まず捜査の終了段階で欧州委と対象企業がカルテルの内容や証拠を協議。対象企業がカルテルヘの関与や責任を認めると、それ以降の法的手続きが大幅に簡素化される。企業はその見返りに制裁金の１０%の減額が認められる。
　EUはカルテル摘発を迅速に進めるため、情報提供などで協力的な企業に制裁金の免除や減額を認める制度「リーニエンシー」を導入済み。新たな示談制度は捜査協力が主な対象ではなく、法的手続きを簡素化する措置といえ、相対的に制裁金の減額幅は小さい。
　EUはカルテルを結んだ企業には巨額制裁金という厳罰主義で臨んでいる。昨年の制裁金は総額で約３３億４千万ユーロ(約５５８０億円)と前年の1.8倍に膨らんだ。１企業あたりの制裁金額も大幅に増え、これを不服として欧州司法裁判所に提訴するケースが相次いでいる。
　EUのカルテル規制強化を受けて、日本企業の摘発も急増している。昨年摘発されたYKKは、買収した子会社がカルテルに関与していたとして約２５０億円の支払いを科された。厳しい裁定に不満を持った同社は、制裁金減額を求め欧州司法裁判所に提訴した。