Three Finnish pulp producers subject to EU antitrust inspection

Antitrust Law On Tuesday, the European Commission began unannounced inspections on the premises of several European forestry companies, including Metsä in Finland, Stora Enso and UPM.

Inspections continued yesterday, at least on the premises of Metsä Fiber and Stora Enso. According to Helsinki Gin Sanoma..

European Commission on Tuesday clearly Inspections should be part of an effort to determine if wood pulp producers have violated antitrust laws prohibiting cartels and restrictive business practices. He emphasized that conducting such inspections does not mean that the company is guilty of violations, as unannounced inspections are a “preparatory stage” for alleged anti-competitive behavior.

According to data compiled by Afry, each of the targeted Finnish companies has an approximately 4% share of the global pulp market.

Antitrust authorities were accompanied by responders from domestic antitrust authorities for inspections. Timo Matira, Head of the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (KKV) Competition Unit, Said Helsingin Sanoma on Tuesday said the European Commission normally uses state authorities for such efforts.

“Our duty is to support the Commission’s investigation. Inspections, among other things, require knowledge of the local language and support many practical things,” he said, driving the inspections. Refused to guess about.

“I can’t comment on that, and I don’t even know all the details because we are really involved in the supporting role.”

Petri KuoppamakiA professor of corporate law at Aalto University, said the European Commission’s investigation into suspicious anti-competitive practices is usually driven by accusations from one of the participating companies. Antitrust law states that companies accusing the cartel may be exempt from paying fines.

It would be virtually impossible for antitrust authorities to find evidence of price cooperation between large corporations without blame.

The purpose of the inspection is to find criminal evidence of price cooperation, such as emails, meeting notes, or internal notes detailing such illegal activity.

“I won’t comment on this case in particular, but generally speaking, the officials conducting the inspection need to know fairly exactly who the office and computer should start with to look for evidence. “Kuoppamäki told Helsinki Sanoma.

He also reminded us that the test cannot be carried out without legitimate suspicion. It can come not only from criticism, but also from observations made by the client about the seller’s activities.

“We can’t do this kind of test just in case, but we need to be specific,” he says. Clarification, Again at the general level, to YLE.

Aleksi Teivainen – HT Three Finnish pulp producers subject to EU antitrust inspection

Back to top button