Why didn’t the European Commission inquire on Novamont’s unfair commercial practices?

Context

Eni and Novamont have been condemned for unfair commercial practices in Italy by the Italian antitrust authorities. They have been condemned for unfair commercial practices in the bioplastics and biofuel sector. More info on these (external) links.

The bio-economy (bioplastics and biofuels) are perceived as an alternative to the fossil-based economy. The bio-economy is perceived as a theoretical solution to climate change created by the fossil-based economy. Therefore, companies like ENI and Novamont should behave like corporate gentlemen because otherwise they’re giving a bad reputation to the bio-economy sector.

It’s time for ENi and Novamont to stop acting like classic “oil and plastic companies” who think that they can do everything what they want and that the political institutions will watch and say nothing.

European Commission

There was an attempt to start an antitrust procedure at European level against ‘European Bioplastics’ (EU federation to lobby for the interests of bioplastics companies) and its members including Novamont (100% ENI) and other bioplastics companies. Novamont has been a leading member of the European Bioplastics association.

The first EU antitrust complaint was submitted to the European Commission (DG Competition) around April–May 2022.

The complaint consisted of dozens of official documents—hundreds of pages in total—all of which were internal ‘European Bioplastics’ documents.

To protect their identities, I will not disclose the names of the complainants, who are industry insiders.

I had the opportunity to review the files, documents, and emails. Based on my research and assessment, the evidence pointed to agreements and arrangements to destroy competing bioplastics technologies between Novamont and other European Bioplastics members, including BASF, spanning more than a decade.

One of the successful actions of European Bioplastics was to include an OXO ban in the EU SUPD (EU Single Use Plastics Directive). Vittorio Prodi was the rapporteur of the EU SUPD European Parliament report. European Bioplastics lobbying activities led to the inclusion of an OXO bioplastics ban in the Prodi report and the EU SUPD. The major European producer of this OXO bioplastics technology is a British company called Symphony Environmental.

More on this topic: The Anti Oxo History (FREE)

In summary, the documents submitted in the DG competition antitrust complaint suggested that European Bioplastics members like Novamont’s have acted together in an organised way to destroy their competitors. The purpose was to eliminate the competition of (Bioplastics) compostable plastics. Sales leads were also collected by the European Bioplastics website and divided between their members.

After reading the European Commission’s email responses, it became evident to me that the European Commission attempted to sweep the matter under the rug. They refused to inquire on a potential EU wide compostable and bioplastics bag cartel.

I believe the following. Symphony Environmental had started a legal procedure against EU institutions (Parliament, Council and Commission) because they believed they had been (1) discriminated by the OXO ban in the EU SUPD and that (2) the Commission, Parliament and Council were not competent to take such a specific technical decision (oxo ban) in a directive because the REACH directive had transferred these technical procedures and competences to the European Chemical Agency (ECHA). ECHA had started a procedure to look into the OXO bioplastics technology but the European Commission asked them to stop immediately. Why? Was the European Commission biased?

In other words, there was, in my opinion, a conflict of interests from the European Commission to look into an EU wide cartel for compostable plastic bags because it would have made waves regarding the (1) oxo ban in the EU SUPD, (2) the Symphony Environmental vs European Commission lawsuit and (3) the interrupted ECHA (REACH) procedure to look into OXO bioplastics technologies independently.

History of the Complaint

The complaint was initially intended to be submitted to the UK’s antitrust authority, but the UK authority suggested to file the complaint at the European Commission (DG Competition) due to the large number of chemical companies involved.

The UK officials provided the complainants with all the necessary contact details and procedures to escalate the case to the European Commission. They reportedly considered the case too extensive for their own jurisdiction — most of the companies involved were based outside the UK, and the alleged cartel stretched across multiple countries.

By April / May 2022, the formal complaint process had been launched at the European Commission.

European Commission DG Competition

The complaint was filed at: DG COMPETITION – Unit E2: Antitrust: Consumer goods, Basic industries, Agriculture and Manufacturing.

Initially, the names of the EU public officials at DG Competition who were responsible for this ‘file’ had been published. However, the European Commission (DG Competition) threatened with legal actions if the names were not removed.

I was against this decision because I believe in the transparency of policies and decision making processes of so-called democratic institutions. However, the consequences of the EU SUPD allowing compostable plastics to be commercialised will have extensive public health consequences in the future and it may lead to hundred of thousands of deaths and millions of cancer (see below). I don’t want to put this burden on the back of the EU public officials who were probably unaware of the political and public health ramifications of this file.

Here are the initials of the European Commission (DG Competition) public officials who dealt with the complaint.

JC – case handler at the European Commission (DG Competition)

Compostable plastic Cartel

Allegedly, the industry cartel focusses on so-called “compostable plastics.” Far from being harmless, these plastics risk contaminating agricultural soils and entering the human body as microplastics. If left unchecked, this could become the largest plastic-related public health scandal of the 21st century.

Here’s why:

Microplastics are infiltrating our food chain and accumulating in the human body. People are unknowingly ingesting them, with potentially serious health effects, including hormonal disruption, cancer, and infertility.

The EU’s Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) is actively promoting compostable plastics across Europe. Expanding their use on a large scale will inevitably increase microplastic contamination, potentially leading to millions of cancers and deaths as plastics accumulate in compost, farmlands, agricultural soils, and ultimately the food chain.

Compounding the problem, DG Competition’s Unit E2 — responsible for antitrust issues in consumer goods, basic industries, agriculture, and manufacturing — frequently communicates via anonymized emails, signing only as the “Comp E2 Team.” This lack of transparency makes it impossible to know which officials are actually handling these matters.

Given the potentially massive public health consequences, it is crucial to identify the officials who have allowed this situation to persist. Millions of European citizens could end up consuming food contaminated with “plastic” compost.

Email of 2 May 2022

Sent by : JC – case handler at the European Commission (DG Competition) to the person(s) who filled the anti-trust complaint.

Dear XYZ,

Thank you for your email of 13 April 2022, addressed to my colleague Mr. XXXX, and for the attached documents, which we have examined.

We have carefully considered the facts as you describe them in the light of Article 101 in particular, and are of the view that there is insufficient basis for supposing that the firms you identify may be engaged in a cartel….

For the avoidance of doubt, I would explain that we have treated your email and the documents supplied as market information, and not as a formal complaint …..

Yours sincerely,

JC
Case Handler

PERSONAL REMARKS

What does he considers as the facts? Did he only read the accompanying emails or did he read the full anti-trust files?

Carefully … so I guess they read everything?

and are of the view …. are they giving a personal opinion?

For the avoidance of doubt, I would explain that we have treated your email and the documents supplied as market information, and not as a formal complaint …..

What does he mean with ‘treated’. He doesn’t say whether they have read the cartel files or not. He doesn’t recognises or describes the cartel docs he has received, he remains vague.

Email of 12 May of 2022

Sent by : JC – case handler at the European Commission (DG Competition) to the person(s) who filled the anti-trust complaint.

Dear XYZ

Thank you for your email of 5 May 2022. I also refer to your email of 13 April, my reply of 2 May, and to your previous correspondence with my colleague Mr XXXX.

As regards your first two questions, without carrying out an extensive investigation, it would not be possible to conclude as to the legality or otherwise of acts of the association identified in your earlier correspondence or indeed of its members. However, as I have already told you, the documents that you have sent us do not provide sufficient basis for supposing that any breach of the EU competition rules may have occurred.

…..

Yours sincerely,

JC
Case Handler

PERSONAL REMARKS

On one hand they say we didn’t carry an extensive investigation but on the other hand they say that the documents you sent us do not provide sufficient basis for supposing a breach.

How can you know whether the docs are valid or not if you don’t read them all? How can you come to that conclusion?

Email of 24 May 2022

Sent by : JC – case handler at the European Commission (DG Competition) to the person(s) who filled the anti-trust complaint.

Dear XYZ

I refer to your email of May 15 2022 and to our previous correspondence on the subject of biodegradable plastics.

As regards your request for clarification, in your earlier email of 5 May, you asked us whether certain practices were “completely legal according to EU law”. Based on the information that you have supplied, the Commission cannot provide the broad and absolute conclusion on legality that you request. As I have already told you, it would only be possible to do this if we had first carried out an extensive investigation.

As to the officials who have reviewed the documents that you have provided and replied to you, our names and roles are in the electronic signatures at the foot of the emails that you have received: Mr JC (case handler) and Mr PVL (case handler).

There are no official European Commission identification references for the documents that you have supplied. Instead, they have been placed in a horizontal (i.e. broad multi-sector) file that belongs to the particular unit in which I work: HT.1629.

Conclusion

I went though all the documents and found enough evidence to confirm a cartel. That’s my personal opinion and conclusion.

Nothing new, there have been many cartels in the oil and plastic sector.

The reference of the complaint file is: H.T. 1629 …. I’m not sure if this is an official reference for a complaint or if it’s just a code to say ‘trashed’.

Novamont and ENI were fined €32 Mln for unfair commercial pravctices in Italy by the Italian anti-trust authorities: Novamont has been fined €32M for abusive fraudulent commercial practices and market manipulation

ENI was fined 336 Million in 2025 for a biofuel cartel: ENI is fined €336 million for Biofuel cartel

Did the European Commission protect Novamont and ENI?

How and WHY?

Many industry lobbyists, consultants and executives end up working for the European Commission. They keep close relationship with industry lobbyists. One could say that the industry is succesfull in placing their “guys” at the European Commission.

ENI is closely connected to Romano and Vittorio Prodi. Top people at the European Commission including DG competition have been appointed by Prodi at the time he was president of the European Commission.

ENI proposed to Romano Prodi to head the South Stream pipeline. ENI wouldn’t offer this job to Prodi if they weren’t sure he was 100% on their side. – Romano Prodi refuses to head South Stream pipeline project

Do you think the European Commission has been protecting oil and plastic companies?

Do you think the European Commission puts commercial interests above public health?