Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Woodpulp II

[1993] ECR I-1307

Case summary last updated at 24/01/2020 17:43 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Woodpulp II

Scandinavian and american woodpulp producers had practice where they announced in advance the max prices they would charge for each quarter of the year, and done this between 1971-1981) Commission argued that there mustn't be any price fixing. 

Court disagreed: 
1. Price announcements did not lessen each undertakings uncertainty as to future behaviour of its competitors. Ie, when they were announcing its prices, they couldn't be sure as to what the others would be doing. Held, they were acting independently.  
2. Court was satisfied that there was an alternative and perfectly rational explanation for parallel behaviour. Explanation was that woodpulp market was a long term market where both seller and buyers trying to limit commercial risk. Buyers asked for these announcements. 
3. Actually, wood pulp market was oligopoly.

Woodpulp II crops up in following areas of law