What if we do nothing? EGARA on the ELV recycling cartel

EGARA recently issued a statement titled “Cartel – What if we do nothing?” following the European Commission’s (EC) fine of OEMs for a long-running cartel that avoided ELV treatment costs and misled consumers. EGARA warns that ATFs received no compensation and that inaction now may signal acceptance and invite future abuses.

elvs in a scrapyard — Image credit: Shutterstock

On 1 April 2025, the European Commission published a decision on its website imposing fines of almost half a billion euros on several vehicle manufacturers (OEMs), including ACEA, the European car manufacturers’ association. The fines relate to long-term anti-competitive practices that ignored obligations laid down in the ELV Directive, in particular:

The “Zero Treatment Cost” approach, under which OEMs refused to pay a fair price for the treatment of ELVs, claiming that the residual value of the vehicle should cover all recycling costs.
A joint decision by OEMs not to inform consumers about vehicle recyclability prevents customers from taking green choices into account when choosing a car.

This coordinated decision not to fulfil EPR obligations on recycling costs could be regarded, in EGARA’s view, as a “slap in the face of ATFs”.

The investigation covers a period of 15 years, from 2002 to 2017. Many will remember the 2022 raids on OEM offices in the UK. At that time, EGARA was asked by the Antitrust authorities to explain the dismantling process. Only Mercedes-Benz escaped a fine, as it reported the cartel to the EU, even though it had participated from the start.

In case of compensation

ACEA has stated that, although cartels are forbidden, consumers were not affected. Even if we accept that consumers were not directly targeted, this raises serious questions: does this statement show a willingness to cooperate, or does it suggest that OEMs see little wrong in their behaviour and might repeat it if there are no real consequences? What will make them comply with their legal obligations? And after this second major scandal, remember Dieselgate, can we expect more cooperation?

In reality, a cartel is an illegal practice that distorts competition, and such distortion always harms consumers in the end. ACEA’s position is therefore incorrect. In this case, the activities of ATFs have been illegally restricted, undermining their competitiveness and their ability to serve consumers. The impact on consumers may be indirect, but it is real. Again, the key questions remain: what will make OEMs follow the law, and will they behave differently after this?

Claims and consequences

Many ATFs and organisations have already been approached by lawyers specialising in damages claims. A claim is not a fine; it is about recovering money that should have gone to a specific party in the first place. The half-billion euro fine goes entirely to the EU, not to any ATF.

We recognise that in some countries, EPR systems exist and ATFs have received (partial) compensation or coverage for ELV treatment costs. Not every ATF in Europe has been affected in the same way. It has even been suggested that some ATFs, which could not compete with illegal operators, might have survived if they had been properly compensated. Will these ATFs be able to submit claims? And are such claims necessary to prevent further bankruptcies?

There is also concern about the relationship with OEMs. Will claims damage this relationship permanently? OEMs have made agreements that directly violate ATFs’ rights. What will be the consequences if we now choose to do nothing? A settlement could be an alternative, financial compensation, improved cooperation, or formal recognition. Of course, EGARA prefers a constructive relationship. Each country must decide for itself whether to pursue claims. EGARA will not file claims, as these must be made at national level, but its members are free to do so.

EGARA believes that this cartel is a direct attack on the rights of ATFs. Their position on EPR and fair compensation has been set out in a separate statement. Fines do not go to ATFs, and this money could be put to better use. If court cases ultimately benefit ATFs, the goal is not to harm OEMs, but to restore fairness in a system where vehicles are meant to be part of a truly circular economy.

Source egara.eu/cartel