Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:47
Date: 2017-01-26
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal against penalty
Origin: Austria;Belgium;Germany;Italy;Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 January 2017 1. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Distinction between the final amount and the intermediate amount of the fine — Consequences (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3)) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Whether permissible — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Plea directed against a ground included for the sake of completeness — Ground of appeal ineffective — Rejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 1. The fact that, owing to the application of the ceiling of 10% of turnover referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, certain factors such as the gravity and duration of the infringement are not actually reflected in the amount of the fine imposed is merely a consequence of the application of that upper limit to the final amount. The limit is one which is uniformly applicable to all undertakings and arrived at according to the size of each of them, and seeks to ensure that the fines are not excessive or disproportionate. That upper limit thus has a distinct and autonomous objective by comparison with the criteria of gravity and duration of the infringement. (see paras 27, 29) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 36, 37) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 45, 46)