Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:48
Date: 2002-02-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Determining the amount of the fine;Definition of undertaking
Procedure: Action for annulment;Judgment delivered after back reference;Appeal against penalty - successful
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Community rules — Infringements — Attribution of responsibil­
ity — Legal person responsible for the operation of the undertakings at the material 
time — Imputability to the acquirer of the undertakings — None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) 
II - 843 
SUMMARY — CASE T-354/94 
2. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination thereof — Principle of equal 
treatment — Same method for undertakings which participated in an agreement 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) 
3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Reduction in fine in exchange for cooper­
ation — Actions for annulment — Fresh review of the size of the reduction — 
Excluded 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15) 
1. The fact that an acquirer is aware that 
the undertakings acquired participated 
in an infringement before their acquisi­
tion does not suffice to impute to it the 
unlawful conduct prior to that acquisi­
tion. That circumstance, namely that 
the acquirer was not unaware of the 
infringements of the undertakings 
acquired, is not in itself such as to 
render inapplicable the rule that 'it 
falls, in principle, to the legal or natural 
person managing the undertaking in 
question when the infringement was 
committed to answer for that infringe­
ment, even if, at the time of the 
decision finding the infringement, 
another person had assumed responsi­
bility for operating the undertaking'. 
The rule must be understood to mean 
that it falls, in principle, to the 'legal 
person' managing the undertakings 
before their acquisition to answer for 
the infringement which they committed 
during that period. It follows that the 
existence, on the date of the decision 
imposing fines, of the legal person 
which managed the operations of the 
undertakings in question is sufficient 
for responsibility for their action not to 
be imputable to the acquirer. 
(see paras 60, 70) 
2. In accordance with the principle of 
equal treatment, it is necessary to 
determine the amount of the fines 
imposed on undertakings which have 
participated in an agreement or con­
certed practice contrary to Article 85(1) 
of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) 
according to the same method, unless 
objective justification for not following 
that method is advanced. 
(see para. 78) 
II - 844 
STORA KOPPARBERGS BERGSLAGS v COMMISSION 
3. The risk that an undertaking which has 
been granted a reduction in its fine in 
exchange for its cooperation will sub­
sequently seek annulment of the 
decision finding the infringement of 
the competition rules and imposing a 
penalty on the undertaking responsible 
for the infringement, and will succeed 
before the Court of First Instance or 
before the Court of Justice on appeal, is 
a normal consequence of the exercise 
of the remedies provided for in the 
Treaty and the Statute. Accordingly, 
the mere fact that an undertaking 
which has cooperated with the Com­
mission and which for that reason has 
been given a reduction in the amount 
of its fine has successfully challenged 
the decision before the Community 
judicature cannot justify a fresh review 
of the size of the reduction granted to 
it. 
(see para. 85) 
II - 845