Elevator and Escalator Cartel

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The so-called elevator and escalator cartel , also known as the “elevator cartel” or “elevator and escalator cartel”, set prices between 1995 and 2004, divided markets, manipulated bids for procurement orders and exchanged confidential information that was important for business. The first clues came at the end of 2003; thereupon investigators of the EU commission searched the affected companies in January 2004.

The fact is that the cartel worked at least in Germany and the Benelux countries . The investigators were targeting 17 subsidiaries of the world's leading quartet of elevator and escalator companies: ThyssenKrupp Elevator from Germany, Otis, which belongs to the US company United Technologies , Schindler from Switzerland, Kone from Finland and also Mitsubishi Elevator Europe, the only participated in the Dutch cartel.

Fines

After more than three years of investigations, in February 2007 the Commission imposed the highest EU antitrust fine to date with a total volume of EUR 992.3 million, which was broken down as follows:

The fine for Kone in Belgium and Luxembourg was completely waived because the local subsidiaries there cooperated with the investigators, but not in Germany and the Netherlands. The Commission justified the 50% surcharge for ThyssenKrupp by stating that the company was convicted of participating in a stainless steel cartel in 1998 and was therefore classified as a repeat offender .

Cartel implementation

Managing directors, sales directors and customer service managers met regularly in bars and restaurants, took trips to the country or abroad, and used prepaid mobile phones to prevent their conversations from being tracked. At their meetings, they determined who should receive which (new systems, modernization or maintenance) order and at what price. The others submitted unrealistically high bids in order to never win the contract when the contract was awarded.

The cartel has far-reaching economic consequences, including: a. maintenance contracts have terms of up to 50 years. In order to protect itself against illegal contracts, the EU Commission suggested calling national courts. Who relies on the decision of the EU Commission could negotiate more favorable contracts and also damages demand.

Customers who paid an excessive price to their elevator or staircase supplier can sue the supplier. However, the legal situation is considered complex.

A summary of the decision of the EU Commission of February 21, 2007 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on March 26, 2008. Accordingly, the EU Commission found no price agreements on maintenance contracts for the Germany business area. It literally means:

“The violations concerned both new installation and services with the exception of Germany, where it was assumed that they only extended to new installation.” And “... the cartels concerned the same products and services in every member state with the exception of Germany, where as far as the Commission is aware, services were not a direct part of the cartel agreements ... " .

Appeal

All European manufacturers appealed against the decision of the Commission for annulment before the Court of the European Union on (CFI). In July 2011, the 8th Chamber of the Court decided on the various lawsuits, which were combined across the company group.

The actions of Otis (Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07) and Kone (Case T-151/07) were dismissed by judgment of July 13, 2011. The Schindler lawsuit (Case T-138/07) was largely dismissed by judgment of July 13, 2011. Only the actions brought by ThyssenKrupp (Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07) were partially successful: in relation to The fines were decided that there was no repeat offender and that the fines could therefore not be increased, and the fines were reduced accordingly. The complaints were otherwise dismissed. The fine against ThyssenKrupp was thus reduced to € 319.78 million.

Both Schindler and ThyssenKrupp have appealed to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the judgments of the CFI , which failed in December 2019. The decision on the matter was referred back to the Austrian jurisdiction and is now pending at the OHG .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Spiegel Online : EU fines billions against the elevator cartel , accessed on March 15, 2012.
  2. ^ Christian Mayer: Contestation of contract by cartel victims . In: Economy and Competition (WuW) 2010, 29–38.
  3. ^ Spiegel Online: Appeal against cartel punishment , accessed on March 15, 2012.
  4. ↑ . CFI, judgment of 13 July 2011, Case T-138/07 (online: Lexetius.com/2011,3022 )
  5. ↑ EuG, judgment of July 13, 2011, case T-144/07 (online: Lexetius.com/2011,3023 )
  6. ↑ JUVE- www.juve.de: Property damage: Binder fights for Upper Austria ECJ judgment in the elevator cartel. Retrieved February 20, 2020 .