Share

FIRSTonline Banner

The Antitrust Authority fined six oil companies €936 million. Among them, Eni, which "expresses its strongest dissent."

According to the Authority, oil operators coordinated to determine the value of the bio-based component included in the fuel price. Eni, which is required to pay €336 million, announced it will defend its rights in court because the decision is "incomprehensible and unfounded."

The Antitrust Authority fined six oil companies €936 million. Among them, Eni, which "expresses its strongest dissent."

The Competition and Market Authority imposed a fine of over 936 million in total to Eni, Esso, Ip, Q8, Saras and Tamoil for anti-competitive agreement. But Eni, for which the fine amounts to 336 million, does not agree and expressed "firm dissent and profound surprise” for the sanction announced at the end of a proceeding initiated over two years ago.

From the Antitrust investigation, started by a whistleblower, it emerged that the main oil operators they coordinated to determine the value of the organic component included in the price of fuel.

Il Eni title in Piazza Affari quoted at 15,18 euros, up 0,13%, in a Ftse Mib up 0,26%.

The fine against the Eni group is 336 million euros

The Authority has taken action against the most important oil companies operating in Italy: Eni, Esso, Ip, Iplom, Q8, Saras and Tamoil (for the latter also with reference to the conduct of Repsol and has ascertained aanti-competitive agreement in the sale of the automotive fuel for all parts, with the exception of Iplom and Repsol. For this reason, it fined the companies for a total of 936,7 million euros, in particular Eni for 336,2 million, Esso for 129.4 million, Ip for 163,7 million, Q8 for 172.6 million, Saras for 43,8 million, and Tamoil for 91,1 million.

The cartel began on January 1, 2020, and lasted until June 30, 2023. The value of this important price component increased from approximately €20/m3 in 2019 to approximately €60/m3 in 2023.

According to the Antitrust Authority, "the companies implemented simultaneous price increases—mostly coincident—driven by direct or indirect exchanges of information between the companies involved. The cartel was facilitated by the disclosure of the precise value of the organic component in numerous articles published in "Staffetta Quotidiana," a trade newspaper, thanks in part to information sent directly by Eni to the paper."

Eni's response: Incomprehensible and unfounded Antitrust decision, based on a total misrepresentation of the facts

Eni's response was immediate, and in a statement it "expresses its firmest dissent and profound surprise at the Authority's conclusions."

Despite the "full collaboration and transparency ensured" by Eni throughout the investigation, a note states, the AGCM's accusation is based on a artificial reconstruction which ignores the operating logic of the market e distorts the reality of the facts, decontextualizing legitimate communications related to reciprocal supply relationships between operators".

The Antitrust Authority, Eni continues, "ignores the evidence that emerged during the investigation, which demonstrates that Eni and other operators have always acted independently and often in a non-aligned manner. The assessments regarding the publication of prices in the trade press are also unfounded, given that the information regarding the price variations of the organic component was already known to the market and, therefore, unable to influence competitive dynamics."

The AGCM's decision, Eni adds, "appears even more paradoxical considering it concerns a component, imposed by regulatory requirements, that only accounts for a few cents per liter of fuel consumption and unjustifiably affects fair and transparent commercial practices, discouraging efficiency and innovation in a strategic sector for the country." Such an approach, Eni emphasizes, "unfortunately not new to the Authority, risks further penalizing Italian industrial investments in the energy transition."

In addition to the damage resulting from "an unjust fine, of an absolutely abnormal amount, today's measure also constitutes yet another serious reputational damage to Eni, which is being associated with collusive practices to which it has no part." Therefore, Eni, "as it has done in the past with respect to the fine already received for alleged unfair commercial practices" related to its biofuels (Diesel+ case), which was definitively overturned by the Council of State more than five years after its imposition, "will vigorously defend its rights and its image in all competent jurisdictions," the statement concludes.

comments