The crux of Clariant’s argument was that the Commission unjustly inflated the basic fine, failed to exercise its discretion properly, and imposed a penalty far exceeding the necessary deterrent for similar offenses. Clariant contended that mitigating circumstances had not been considered in the fine calculation.
The Swiss multinational giant asserted that the cartel was put in place by a company it acquired 14 years later. It maintained that only one Clariant employee had participated in the misconduct, entirely unbeknownst to other company staff. This led to claims that the Commission had violated the principles of proportionality, equal treatment, protection of legitimate expectations, and legal certainty.
Additionally, Clariant argued that the Commission failed to adequately explain the rationale behind increasing the basic fine. Nevertheless, the General Court rejected this argument, ruling that the Commission had meticulously outlined its reasons in the decision.
Competition Law Breaches Unveiled
The European Commission contended that the companies, including Clariant, had engaged in the exchange of price-related information and had conspired to manipulate the monthly supply contract price for ethylene. This collusion substantially impacted the market price, causing harm to sellers of the industrial chemical.
