Antitrust, 936 million fine to six oil companies

The Antitrust Authority has fined Eni, Esso, Ip, Q8, Saras and Tamoil a total of more than EUR 936 million for restrictive agreements. This was stated in a note. The investigation, initiated thanks to a whistleblower, revealed that the main oil operators coordinated to determine the value of the bio component included in the price of fuel.

The Italian Antitrust Authority has closed its investigation against Eni, Esso, Ip, Iplom, Q8, Saras and Tamoil (for the latter also with reference to the conduct of Repsol, now acquired by it), the most important oil companies operating in Italy. The Authority found an agreement restricting competition in the sale of automotive fuel for all parties except Iplom and Repsol. For this reason it sanctioned the companies for an overall total of EUR 936,659,087. In detail, it fined Eni EUR 336,214,660, Esso EUR 129,363,561, Ip EUR 163,669,804, Q8 EUR 172,592,363, Saras EUR 43,788,944, and Tamoil EUR 91,029,755. At the end of the complex investigation, initiated following the complaint of a whistleblower, the Authority continues, "it emerged that Eni, Esso, Ip, Q8, Saras and Tamoil coordinated to determine the value of the bio component included in the price of fuel (a component introduced by the companies to comply with the obligations provided for by the regulations in force). The cartel started on 1 January 2020 and lasted until 30 June 2023. The value of this important price component increased from around EUR 20 per mc in 2019 to around EUR 60 per mc in 2023'. According to the Antitrust Authority, the companies implemented contextual price increases - largely coinciding - determined by direct or indirect exchanges of information between the companies involved. "The cartel," the note concludes, "was facilitated by the communication of the punctual value of the bio component in numerous articles published in 'Staffetta Quotidiana', a well-known daily newspaper in the sector, thanks also to information sent directly by Eni to the newspaper."

"With regard to the sanction announced today by the Antitrust Authority, resulting from the proceedings initiated more than two years ago", Eni expresses "the firmest dissent and deep surprise at the Authority's conclusions, which found the company to be involved in an alleged agreement restricting competition between the main oil companies operating in Italy in the motor fuels sector, regarding the cost of the bio component of the price of fuel, introduced by the companies in traditional fuels to comply with regulatory obligations". This was announced in a note by Eni, commenting on the sanction.

"Notwithstanding the full cooperation and transparency assured by Eni throughout the course of the investigation, the AGCM's accusatory framework is based on an artificial reconstruction that ignores the logic of market functioning and misrepresents the reality of the facts, decontextualising legitimate communications related to mutual supply relationships between operators. The AGCM ignores the evidence that emerged in the course of the investigation, which shows that Eni and the other operators have always acted autonomously and often in misalignment, just as the assessments regarding the publication of prices in the sector press are unfounded, given that the information relating to the variation in the prices of the bio component was already known to the market and, therefore, not capable of conditioning the dynamics of competition", adds Eni, for whom "the decision of the AGCM appears, moreover, even more paradoxical if we consider that it concerns a component, imposed by regulatory obligations, which affects only a few cents per litre on the consumer price of fuel and unjustifiably affects fair and transparent commercial conduct, discouraging efficiency and innovation in a strategic sector for the country".

Among other companies, Q8 expressed in a note 'its surprise at the outcome of the procedure, certain that its actions have always been in full compliance with current legislation, including competition and consumer protection regulations, as well as the highest standards of business ethics'. And it reserves the right to analyse in detail the reasons for the decision, 'drawing the appropriate consequences also in terms of a possible appeal before the TAR'.