District heating pipes form a significant trade between Member States, the largest national markets in terms of consumption being Germany and Denmark. Denmark is the main manufacturer and provides all Member States in which district heating is used.

At the end of 1990 four Danish producers concluded an agreement on general cooperation on their domestic market and, from the autumn of 1991, two German producers regularly participated in their meetings. According to the Commission, it was in that context that negotiations took place leading, in 1994, to an agreement aimed at setting quotas for the whole of the European market. These quotas were allocated by the 'directors' club' (consisting of the chairmen or managing directors of the undertakings participating in the cartel) to each undertaking at both European and national level. The countries concerned included Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden.

In 1995, the Swedish undertaking Powerpipe AB reported the situation to the Commission; it complained that its activities on its domestic market were being hindered and that it was being forced from the sector by the cartel's tactics.

In the contested decision of 21 October 1998, the Commission established the existence of a series of agreements and practices having the objectives of:

_     dividing the national and European markets among producers on the basis of quotas;
_     consequently, forcing other producers from the sector;
_     agreeing prices for products;
_     allocating projects to pre-designated producers and manipulating tendering procedures;
_     more specifically, in the case of Powerpipe AB (the only substantial undertaking not in the cartel), hindering its activities in order to drive out a direct competitor.

Furthermore, the Commission stated that what was originally a 'Danish' and subsequently a 'European' cartel had the long-term objective of extending the control of participants to the whole of the European market, which had an appreciable effect on intra-Community trade. For that reason, the Commission, in its decision, imposed fines amounting to approximately EUR 92 million on the companies participating in the cartel.

In their actions before the Court of First Instance, the undertakings complained of misapplication of Community competition law, infringement of the rights of defence (in particular as regards access to documents) and the procedure for setting the fines. The actions have been almost wholly dismissed by the Court of First Instance.

Reminder: An appeal, limited to points of law, may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the decision of the Court of First Instance within two months of its notification.

Case No	Names of parties v European Commission	Fines imposed by the Commission (Decision 1999/60/EC of 21.10.1998) (in ECU)	Judgment of the Court of First Instance (in EUR)
T-9/99	Henss/Isoplus group - HFB Holding KG - HFB Holding GmbH - Isoplus Rosenheim - Isoplus Hohenberg - Isoplus GmbH	4,950,000	decision annulled1 in respect of - HFB Holding KG - HFB Holding GmbH initial fine upheld
T-15/99	Brugg Rohrsysteme	925,000	initial fine upheld
T-16/99	Løgstør Rør	1,500,000	initial fine upheld
T-17/99	Ke Kelit Kunststoffwerk	360,000	initial fine upheld
T-21/99	Dansk Rørindustri	1,475,000	initial fine upheld 2
T-23/99	LR AF 1998	8,900,000	initial fine upheld
T-28/99	Sigma Tecnologie di rivestimento	400,000	fine reduced to 300,000 3
T-31/99	ABB Asea Brown Boveri	70,000,000	fine reduced to 65,000,000 4

Unofficial document for media use only; not binding on the Court of Justice. Available in German, English, French, Danish and Italian. For the full text of the judgments, please consult our Internet page www.curia.eu.int  at approximately 3pm today. For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly: Tel: (00 352) 4303 3355; Fax: (00 352) 4303 2731

¹    The Court of First Instance found that HFB Holding KG and HFB Holding GmbH did not yet exist at the time of the infringement. Accordingly, it held that these two companies were not jointly and severally liable to pay the fine, liability for which must be borne by the Isoplus companies alone.²    The Court of First Instance held that Dansk Rørindustri was not part of the cartel responsible for the infringement during the period April to August 1994. However, the fine was still lawful.³    The Court of First Instance reduced the fine imposed on Sigma to EUR 300,000 on the ground that it only operates on the Italian market and not on the whole of the common market.⁴    The Court of First Instance decided to reduce the fine to EUR 65,000,000 because ABB did not dispute its participation in the cartel and had cooperated in providing the Commission with evidence after receiving the statement of objections.