Unfair Commercial Practices
Biodegradable plastics (bioplastics)bags
The Italian Competition Authority has accused Novamont and its parent company Eni of engaging in unfair commercial practices in the Italian bioplastics sector. The Italian Antitrust Authority has imposed a fine of €30.36 million on Novamont and an additional €1.7 million–jointly with its parent company Eni–for abuse of dominant position in the production of biodegradable bags, covering at least the period from 2018 to 2023.
Biofuels
In a separate matter, the same authority has also accused Eni of participating in a cartel in the biofuels market. The six fined companies are Eni (which received a fine of €336 million), Esso (€129 million), Ip (€164 million), Q8 (€173 million), Saras (€44 million), and Tamoil (€91 million). Tamoil was also fined for the behavior of the Italian division of Repsol, which it acquired in 2021. The Antitrust Authority determined that the six companies formed a cartel (as such an agreement is known in the industry) to set the price to be assigned to the biofuel component, one of the various components that make up the final price of fuel, as well as the amount of subsequent increases.
EU wide cartel?
A complaint alleging the existence of an EU-wide cartel in the bioplastics sector was filed with the European Commission, specifically with Directorate‑General for Competition (DG Competition). The complaint concerned Novamont and the industry federation European Bioplastics.
The European Commission later informed the complainant that the submission would be considered inadmissible (unreceivable) and that the case would not proceed further.
Following this decision, correspondence from the European Commission relating to the matter was published, including the names of Commission officials involved in the exchange.
Subsequently, DG Competition warned that publishing the names of individual officials could raise data-protection concerns under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and indicated that legal action could be pursued if the names were not removed.
The names of the officials were ultimately removed from the published correspondence, although the removal was made under protest and with the view that the request could amount to restrictions on transparency and public scrutiny.
One of the officials later threatened to initiate legal proceedings in Belgium, citing GDPR concerns over the publication of his name.
ENI - SLAPP 