Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:193
Date: 2014-03-27
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 27 March 2014 1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence — Clear indication of the parties liable to be fined and the capacity in which they are to be penalised (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27(1)) 2. Appeals — Appeal held to be founded — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Condition — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61, first para.) 3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union — Reduction in the amount of the fine (Arts 81 EC and 229 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2), second and third paras) 1. In the context of a procedure under Article 81 EC, in accordance with the requirement that the statement of objections be precise, it is necessary for that statement to indicate in which capacity an undertaking is called upon to answer the allegations. That requirement is not satisfied by a statement of objections in which the Commission fails to indicate that the statement of objections has been addressed to a parent company on the ground that it exercised decisive influence over the commercial conduct of one of its subsidiaries. In particular, it cannot be inferred that the Commission clearly indicated to the parent company that it intended to hold it liable, in its capacity as parent company, for the conduct of its subsidiary, since the statement of objections merely states that that parent company participated in the cartel through the director of its subsidiary, while referring to the subsidiary only in its capacity as the predecessor of another subsidiary, and especially since no statement of objections has been addressed to the earlier subsidiary. There is an infringement of the rights of the defence of the parent company in such circumstances. (see paras 24-30) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 35) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 35, 39, 40)