Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:682
Date: 2016-09-14
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Appeal against penalty
Origin: Italy

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 14 September 2016 1. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Infringements — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Imputation of responsibility to an undertaking for the whole of the infringement notwithstanding its limited role — Lawfulness (Art. 101 TFEU) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) 3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — No obligation to take account of the deficit situation of the undertaking concerned — Actual capacity of the undertaking to pay in a particular social and economic context — To be taken into consideration — Conditions — Breach of the principle of equal treatment — Absence) (Arts 101 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) 4. Appeal — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the assessment by the General Court in regard to the amount of the fines imposed on undertakings which have infringed the competition rules of the Treaty — Precluded — Whether it may review that assessment on grounds alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality — Lawfulness — Observance of the obligation to state reasons (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 256 TFEU and 261 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31) 5. Judicial proceedings — Duration of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Dispute concerning whether there has been an infringement of the competition rules — Failure to act within a reasonable time — Consequences — Use of an action for compensation as effective remedy (Arts 263 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) 6. Non-contractual liability — Action based on excessive duration of the procedure before the General Court — Conditions — Obligation to determine the claim sitting in a different composition from that which heard the dispute giving rise to the procedure whose duration is criticised (Arts 256 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) 7. Judicial proceedings — Duration of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Criteria for assessment (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 31-33) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 41) 3. By setting out the reasons why it took the view that the appellant was able to pay the amount of the fine imposed on it for infringement of the EU competition rules, the General Court is, without committing an error of law, entitled to respond to the complaint made to it alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment by finding that the financial situations of other undertakings fined for the same infringement are different and that it is in having regard to those differences, and not in the light of the manner in which those undertakings participated in the infringement, that the Commission had been of the opinion that it was appropriate to reduce the amount of the fine at issue in part, calculated to take account of each of the undertakings’ inability to pay. (see paras 44, 45) 4. The obligation on the General Court to state reasons is satisfied where, in the context of the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the amount of the fine imposed on an undertaking for infringement of the competition rules, firstly, taking into account its participation in a single infringement, secondly, setting out the actual facts of that undertaking’s situation which it considered relevant concerning, in particular, the seriousness and duration of its participation in that infringement, thirdly, in determining the amount of the fine, taking account also of the need to ensure that it was a sufficient deterrent and of the principle of proportionality and, finally, not regarding itself as being bound by either the Commission’s calculations or its guidelines, it carried out its own assessment of the amount of the fine by taking account of all the facts of the case, even if it did not specify the calculation method which it used nor, in particular, state the weighting it gave to each of the relevant facts of which it took account in that regard. It is only inasmuch as the Court of Justice considers that the level of the penalty is not merely inappropriate, but also excessive to the point of being disproportionate, that it would have to find that the General Court erred in law, on account of the inappropriateness of the amount of a fine. (see paras 53-56) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 65) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 66) 7. See the text of the decision. (see para. 67)