Working group on cooperation in oil products market s January 25 th , Moscow, Russia

1. Working group on cooperation in oil products markets January 25th, Moscow, Russia Recent developments – Romanian fuels market The Eco Premium case OanaNeg DumitruBrezoi Romanian Competition Council 1

2. The infringement • Single and complex infringement of Art. 5 (1) CL and of Art 101 (1) TFEU: • Duration – 10.05.2007 – 01.04.2008 • Exchange of information on future market conduct in respect of the Eco Premium gasoline • Agreement and/or concerted practice to stop selling Eco Premium on the Romanian market. 2

3. Parties • OMV PETROM SA • OMV PETROM MARKETING • LUKOIL ROMANIA • ROMPETROL DOWNSTREAM • ENI ROMANIA • MOL ROMANIA • Aggregate mkt share of the parties involved on the relevant market – approx. 90% • Remaining 10% of the market - “white pumps” 3

4. Relevant market (I) – product • Eco Premium • Type of gasoline mainly used for vehicles without catalytic convertor • Introduced on the Romanian mkt in 2004 – 2005 as replacement for leaded gasoline • Result of mix between unleaded gasoline and various metallic additives used for protection of valve seats • From demand side – specific product • Relevant product market – retail sales of Eco Premium

5. Relevant market - geographical • The parties operate networks of filling stations that cover the entire national territory. • Eco Premium was sold at filling stations throughout the country The geographical scope of the cartel was the entire territory of Romania

6. Romanian Oil Association - ARP • Non-profit organization, est.2002 • All involved parties are ARP members • No other members besides the parties • ARP Board – one representative from each of the 6 parties, all senior management • Various WGs/committees for specific projects

7. Overview of the agreement and/or concerted practice • contacts between parties (meetings, discussions and correspondence on stopping sales of Eco Premium); • these contacts resulted in cooperation to avoid competitive pressure, by adopting a common plan to stop selling Eco Premium from April 1st, 2008; • facts commonly agreed were put into practice leading to an altered commercial behaviour of the undertakings involved.

8. Evidence • Agendas of ARP meetings • Minutes of ARP meetings • Draft agreement to stop retail sales of Eco Premium and the associated correspondence • Press statements and press releases of the parties • Replies of the parties to RFIs from the Romanian NCA

9. Assessment (I) • Activities of the parties from May 2007 to April 2008 - part of an overall plan to restrict competition that set a common line of action for the respective undertakings to stop retail sales ofEco Premium, in order to avoid losing clients for the benefit of their competitors. • According to the case-law, such an overall plan may be considered as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of art. 5 (1) CL and art. 101 (1) TFEU

10. Assessment (II) • The draft written agreement objectifies in fact the agreement of the parties • Result – supply, a key element of competition, was artificially altered • Outcome- reduction or even elimination of uncertainty regarding competitors’ behaviour on the market, maximization of results that the parties would have obtained if acting independently.

11. Assessment (III) • Reasons invoked in the observations to the Investigation Report -decreasing demand for the product, economic efficiencies in the distribution of fuels due to the reduction of logistic costs, environmental benefits • Analysis of individual exemption under art.5(2) CL or art.101 (3) TFEU – criteria not fulfilled – no individual exemption could be granted

12. Fines The level of fines was set at approx. 3% of the total turnover of the previous fiscal year (2010) Total fines – approx. EUR 207.5 million

13. Thank you for your attention!