**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.