162 / 391
NEWS LETTER 2 0 1 0
148
In fact, the Commission did not carry out any investigations in the
EU. Thus, all the target LCD panel producers were operating outside of
the EU. In fact, the meetings between them were held in hotels outside
the EU. However, documentation has been provided proving the cartel
formation by the companies active in the relevant market, including the
companies subject to investigation. The Commission has been provided
with a document, “requesting from each company to take care of security
and confidential matters”, and also “to limit written communication”
4
.
The Commission sent an SO under the EU antitrust rules to the above-
stated companies concerning their alleged participation in a cartel in
violation of the Treaty rules in May 2009
5
.
The investigation clearly exposed that the companies were conscious
of their violation of competition rules. The Commission also observed that
the companies tried to hide their meetings and the conclusions resulting
from these meetings.
Fines and Leniency
The Commission fined the six producers of LCD panels mentioned
above a total of 648,925,000 EURO for operating a cartel between October
2001 and February 2006. The Commission’s determination of fines took
into account the companies’ sales of the products concerned in the EU, the
serious nature of the infringement, and its duration.
As it was the first to provide information to expose the cartel, Samsung
received full immunity from fines under the Commission’s leniency
programme. The fines of LG, AU and Chunghwa were also reduced as a
result of their cooperation with the Commission during the investigation
procedure.
4 The Commission, in its press communication, underlined the DRAM investigation which
started in 2002 and concluded in May 2010. The decision concerns a cartel case involving
10 producers of memory chips or DRAMS used in computers and servers. The companies,
Samsung, Hynix, Infineon, NEC, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Elpida and Nanya were fined a
total of 331,273,800 million EURO, including a reduction of 10% for the companies’ acknowl-
edgement of the facts. Micron, however, was not fined because it received full immunity since
it was the first to inform the Commission.
5 A Statement of Objections is a formal step in Commission antitrust investigations in which the
Commission informs the parties concerned in writing of the objections raised against them.