Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC Fines Duration of the infringement Copper plumbing tube industry Size of the relevant market Continuous and multiform infringement Actual impact on the market Ne bis in idem principle Attenuating circumstances
Sumário
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010.
Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG v European Commission.
Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances.
Case T-11/05.
Texto da decisão
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Wieland‑Werke and Others v Commission
(Case T-11/05)
Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper plumbing tube industry – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Continuous and multiform infringement – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – Ne bis in idem principle – Fines – Actual impact on the market – Size of the relevant market – Duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances
1. Community law – General principles of Community law – Legal certainty – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis (see paras 58-63)
2. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 – Infringement of the principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – None (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3)) (see paras 64-72)
3. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Previous decision finding an infringement committed by the same undertaking – Infringements concerning markets for different though related products – No links of conditionality or coordination between the two infringements – No overall plan designed to distort competition – No identity of the infringements forming the subject-matter of the two decisions – Breach of the ne bis in idem principle – None (Art. 81 EC) (see paras 81-83, 87)
4. Competition – Administrative procedure – Powers of the Commission – Power to split a procedure (Art. 81 EC) (see para. 101)
5. Competition – Fines – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Calculation method taking various elements of flexibility into account (Art. 229 EC; Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 108-112)
6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Assessment – Obligation to penalise more lightly an undertaking which simultaneously participated in several infringements – None (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15, and No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 114-115)
7. Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content (Council Regulations No 17 and No 1/2003) (see paras 129-131)
8. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Horizontal cartel concerning prices – Market-sharing arrangement – Very serious infringement (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15, and No 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 138-140)
9. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Actual impact on the market to be taken into account (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15, and No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 143-149)
10. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Size of the market for the products in question – To be taken into consideration (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 160-163)
11. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Observance of the principle of proportionality (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see para. 166)
12. Competition – Fines – Decision imposing fines – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 177, 179)
13. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Account taken of the size and global resources of the fined undertaking (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 189-190, 192)
14. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Duration of the infringement – Infringements of long duration – Increase of 10% of the starting amount per year (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1B) (see paras 203, 205-206)
15. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see para. 227)
Re:
| APPLICATION, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 – Copper plumbing tubes); second, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by that decision; and third, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased. |
Operative part
The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;
3. Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90% of the costs incurred by the Commission;
4. Orders the Commission to bear 10% of its own costs;
5. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.