Participants of the agreement took advantage of both Leniency Programme and Settlement Procedure

Czech Office for the Protection of Competition (hereinafter referred to as “the Office”) issued on February 10, 2011 the first instance decision, by virtue of which it found liable the companies from Henkel, Procter & Gamble and Reckitt Benckiser groups of conclusion and fulfillment of prohibited agreement in the market of detergents, fabric softeners and hand dish cleaners. The Office prohibited further fulfillment of the agreement and imposed fines in the aggregate amount of 29.274 million CZK. The decision has not come into force yet.

According to the findings of the Office, the manufacturers of „cleaning products“ during the course of regular meetings and communication had implemented rise in prices of some particular detergents and had set ranges for price fixing  of detergents, and had mutually coordinated and limited frequency and value of promotion activities, namely the amount of price discounts provided for detergents, fabric softeners and hand dish cleaners. In particular, the Office found liable companies: HENKEL ČR, Ltd. Procter & Gamble – Rakona, Ltd. a Reckitt Benckiser (Czech Republic), Ltd.

The Office qualified aforementioned conduct as a prohibited agreement, which led to the distortion of competition in the market of  detergents, fabric softeners and hand dish cleaners in the territory of the Czech Republic. The agreement had been fulfilled from 1999 until 2004, whereas the competitor Reckitt Benckiser took part in it only for limited time period (until year 2002). It has been found that Reckitt Benckiser was less active party to the agreement, had taken part in a limited number of meetings and had acted often in the market without complying with the agreement, thereby limiting effects and harmful impacts of the prohibited agreement on competition.

The Office initiated investigation on base of application for Leniency. It allows that the undertaking providing the competition authority with evidence of existence of a prohibited agreement and providing sufficient evidence, is granted immunity from fine which would otherwise have been imposed. On these grounds the Office granted full immunity from fine to undertaking Henkel, because this party to the proceedings informed the Office as the first and provided required evidence. Further the Office decreased the amount of fine by 50 % for the undertaking Procter & Gamble, because Procter & Gamble had also met requirements for application of the Leniency Program, providing the Office with further evidence on the conduct in question and doing so substantially contributed to the successful conclusion of the case. Both parties to the proceedings Henkel and Procter & Gamble fulfilled also additional condition of the Leniency Program, having genuinely, helpfully and fully cooperated with the Office during the course of the administrative proceedings.

Simultaneously, all parties to the proceedings took advantage of the so-called settlement procedure, having acknowledged legal qualification and duration of the conduct in question as stated by the Office, and withdrew from suggesting further procedural steps during the proceedings. The Office considered this fact as special circumstance reasoning further 20 % decrease of final amount of fine for sanctioned undertakings.

External Relations Department
11/023/HS010