Statement – 21st November 2025
Cartel
What if we do nothing?
On1st April 2025 the EC published an article on her website about a resolution in which the producers (OEMs) including ACEA (European car producers organisation) were sentenced to a fine of altogether almost half a billion Euros. Reason for this were anti-competitive practices such as (despite the obligations written in the ELV Directive):
– The ‘Zero Treatment Cost’ which means OEMs not paying a fair price for the treatment of ELVs. OEMs have always stated that any recycling costs should be paid with the value of the ELV;
– OEMs decided together not to inform consumers about the recyclability of the vehicles, keeping customers to involve green choices in their decision for buying a car.
In fact agreeing on not to fulfill any EPR obligation in recycling costs could be regarded as a slap in the face of ATFs.
The period the investigation involves is 15 years, from 2002 to 2017. Probably most will remember the raids at the OEM offices in the UK in 2022. At the time EGARA was asked by Antitrust to describe the dismantling process. Only Mercedes-Benz wasn’t fined, as they were the ones to report these practices to the EU, even though they joined the cartel from the beginning.
In case of compensation
ACEA states despite cartels are forbidden, the consumers were not affected. Apart from being right about consumers, does this response mean they are cooperative, or is it a signal that they feel not much was wrong and if it has no consequences, they will something alike, again? What is necessary to make them follow the legal obligations? Will the OEMs be more cooperative after this second scandal (remember Dieselgate)?
ACEA states despite cartels are forbidden, the consumers were not affected. But a cartel is an illegal practice thatdistorts competition. Competition distortion always leads to a negative outcome for the consumer. So ACEA’s argumentis incorrect. In this case, the activities of ATFs, have been illegally restricted, which has contributed to thecompetitiveness of ATFs and the ability to provide services to consumers. The effect of the cartel is indirect, but it exists.What is necessary to make OEMs follow the legal obligations? Will the OEMs be more cooperative after this second scandal (remember Dieselgate)?
Many ATFs and organisations already have been approached by lawyers, specialized in law suits for claims. A claim is not a fine, it’s about money that was kept from a designated receiver. Half a billion goes to the EU only, not to any ATF. We realise that in some countries EPR systems exist and ATFs got (some) money for treatment of ELVs or costs were covered. Not in all countries were ATFs affected by the cartel. It was even mentioned that ATFs that couldn’t compete against illegals might have survived if they had a better position in getting certain costs compensated. Will they be able to make a claim? Or is a claim necessary to prevent more bankruptcy?
Will claims trouble the relationship with OEMs forever? They made an agreement that violates our rights directly. What will be the consequences of doing nothing now. A settlement could also be an option. This could be financial, this could be agreements about cooperation and recognition. Of course a good relationship is what we prefer. Countries should decide for themselves whether to make a claim or not. EGARA will not make a claim as it must be made at an national level. But her members are free to do so if they please.
EGARA is of opinion that the Cartel is direct attack on the rights of ATFs. We explained our view on EPR and compensation in another statement. Fines do not go to ATF’s, te money could be better spent. If a court case ends up in the benefit of ATFs, it’s not to harm OEMs, it’s to do just to a system in which vehicles are supposed to be circular.
The Final Cartel report is published over here:
https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/cases/AT.40669
Recent Comments