In a recent decision, the Market Court of Finland dismissed the penalty payments proposed by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) against several manufacturers and wholesalers of plastic HVAC infrastructure pipes, citing insufficient evidence of anticompetitive cooperation in the market.

As background to the case, in September 2022, the FCCA concluded its investigation into the industry and found that certain manufacturers and wholesalers under the investigation had sought to maintain their market positions and suppress price competition in the industry through anticompetitive cooperation between 2009 and 2016. Following this suspected violation of competition law, the FCCA proposed that the Market Court impose penalty payments totalling EUR 44 million on the manufacturers and wholesalers for infringing competition rules. 

According to the FCCA’s proposal to the Market Court, the manufacturers’ anticompetitive actions, among others, included restricting manufacturers’ direct sales to customers and directing sales to wholesalers. In turn, the wholesalers refrained from including significant quantities of competing products in their product selection. The FCCA argued that these actions were intended to exclude or restrict other players from entering the Finnish market for HVAC infrastructure pipes. However, according to the Market Court, there was no evidence that the manufacturers and wholesalers had restricted direct sales to customers. 

In addition, the FCCA claimed in the proposal that the parties had excluded one competitor from the market for sale of HVAC infrastructure pipes. The Market Court acknowledged that the parties did attempt, in a manner prohibited by competition law, to hinder a competitor’s operations with a mutual aim to restrict competition. However, the parties did not consistently adhere to the restrictive methods. Based on the evidence, only one party under investigation implemented restrictive methods, briefly freezing a competitor’s accounts. The Market Court concluded that this was a short-lived measure with negligible effects on the market and contrary to the FCCA’s assessment, the Market Court found that the anticompetitive actions, identified by the FCCA, had only minor impacts on the market for HVAC infrastructure pipes due to their temporary and isolated nature.

Due to the lack of evidence and insignificant effects of the restrictions, the Market Court dismissed the FCCA’s penalty payment proposal, leaving the parties unsanctioned. Additionally, the Market Court ordered the FCCA to reimburse (part of) the legal costs of the parties involved. 

For more information, please contact Katia Duncker, Petteri Metsä-Tokila or Maria Karpathakis.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION & EU HOMEPAGE