Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2020:207
Date: 2020-03-12
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: France

Summary 128. As none of the grounds of appeal put forward by Nexans can be successful, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety. VI. Costs 129. Under Article 184(2) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court is to make a decision as to costs where it dismisses an appeal. 130. It follows from Article 138(1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 184(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings; where there is more than one unsuccessful party, the Court is to decide how the costs are to be shared. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the appellants have been unsuccessful in their pleas, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. Having brought the appeal together, they must bear the costs jointly and severally. However, it would be inappropriate to order the appellants to pay the costs arising in connection with the fourth ground of appeal, since that ground of appeal stems from a translation error of the Court of Justice of the European Union. To that extent, all parties should initially bear their own costs. Subsequently, they may review whether to claim compensation in that respect from the Court of Justice of the European Union. VII. Conclusion 131. On the basis of the above considerations, I propose that the Court should: 1. Dismiss the appeal. 2. Order Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA to pay the costs of the proceedings jointly and severally with the exception of the costs which arise in connection with the fourth ground of appeal. All parties are to bear their own costs in relation to that ground of appeal. 1 Original language: German. 2 Council Regulation of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1). 3 The same question arises in the parallel proceedings in Case C‑601/18 P, Prysmian and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi v Commission. 4 See Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables), notified under document C(2014) 2139 final and summarised in OJ 2014 C 319, p. 10. 5 Judgment of 12 July 2018, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (T‑449/14, EU:T:2018:456). 6 See paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal and recital 47 of the decision at issue. 7 See paragraph 2 of the judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596). 8 See paragraph 4 of the judgment under appeal and recital 48 of the decision at issue. 9 For details, see below, points 23 to 27 of the present Opinion. 10 T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596. 11 Judgment of 25 June 2014, Nexans and Nexans France v Commission, C‑37/13 P, EU:C:2014:2030. 12 See judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596, paragraphs 115 to 134), where the applications for annulment of the relevant acts of the Commission are declared inadmissible; those findings were not challenged in the subsequent appeal proceedings. 13 See paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment under appeal and Article 1 and recitals 10 to 13 and 66 to 74 of the decision at issue. 14 See paragraph 18 of the judgment under appeal and recitals 997 to 1010 of the decision at issue. 15 See also paragraphs 6 to 14 of the judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596). 16 See above, point 24 of the present Opinion. 17 See, inter alia, judgment of 12 January 2017, Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission (C‑411/15 P, EU:C:2017:11, paragraphs 154 and 155 and the case-law cited). 18 See judgment of 20 May 2010, Gogos v Commission (C‑583/08 P, EU:C:2010:287, paragraphs 23 and 24 and the case-law cited), and my Opinion in that case (C‑583/08 P, EU:C:2010:118, point 33 and the case-law cited). 19 See judgment of 10 April 2014, Areva and Others v Commission (C‑247/11 P and C‑253/11 P, EU:C:2014:257, paragraphs 113 and 114 and the case-law cited). 20 See judgments of 30 September 2003, Eurocoton and Others v Council (C‑76/01 P, EU:C:2003:511, paragraph 52), and of 29 September 2011, Arkema v Commission (C‑520/09 P, EU:C:2011:619, paragraph 31); see, in the same vein, judgment of 14 October 2014, Buono and Others v Commission (C‑12/13 P and C‑13/13 P, EU:C:2014:2284, paragraph 64); see also my Opinion in Commission v United Parcel Service (C‑265/17 P, EU:C:2018:628, point 28). 21 That is true of the following versions: English [‘(c) to take or obtain in any form copies of or extracts from such books or records;’], French [‘c) prendre ou obtenir sous quelque forme que ce soit copie ou extrait de ces livres ou documents;’], German [‘c) Kopien oder Auszüge gleich welcher Art aus diesen Büchern und Unterlagen anzufertigen oder zu erlangen;’], Italian [‘c) fare o ottenere sotto qualsiasi forma copie o estratti dei suddetti libri o documenti;’], Spanish [‘c) hacer u obtener copias o extractos en cualquier formato de dichos libros o de la documentación;’], Romanian [(c) ‘să ia sau să obțină, sub orice formă, copii sau extrase din aceste registre și documente;’], Bulgarian [‘в) да вземат или получават под всякаква форма копия или извлечения от тези книги или документи;’], Czech [‘c) kopírovat nebo získávat v jakékoli formě kopie nebo výpisy z těchto knih nebo záznamů;’], Danish [‘c) at tage eller få kopi eller udskrift under enhver form af sådanne bøger eller forretningspapirer’], Estonian [‘c) teha või saada mis tahes kujul koopiaid või väljavõtteid sellistest raamatupidamis- ja muudest dokumentidest;’], Greek [‘γ) να λαμβάνουν ή να αποκτούν υπό οποιαδήποτε μορφή αντίγραφο ή απόσπασμα των εν λόγω βιβλίων και εγγράφων·’], Croatian [‘(c) uzeti ili zahtijevati u bilo kojem obliku primjerke ili izvatke iz navedenih poslovnih knjiga ili poslovne dokumentacije;’], Latvian [‘c) jebkādā veidā ņemt vai iegūt šo grāmatvedības dokumentu vai citu dokumentu izvilkumu kopijas;’], Lithuanian [‘c) paimti ar gauti tokių knygų ar dokumentų kopijas ar išrašus bet kokia forma;’], Hungarian [‘c) bármilyen formában elkészítsék vagy megszerezzék az ilyen könyvek vagy feljegyzések másolatát vagy kivonatát;’], Dutch [‘c) het maken of verkrijgen van afschriften of uittreksels, in welke vorm ook, van the boeken en bescheiden;’], Polish [‘c) pobrania lub uzyskiwania w każdej formie kopii lub wyciągów z tych ksiąg lub rejestrów;’] and Swedish [‘c) göra eller erhålla alla former av kopior av eller utdrag ur sådana räkenskaper och affärshandlingar,’]. 22 That is true of the following versions: Maltese [‘(ċ) li jieħu jew jikseb f’kwalunkwe forma: kopji ta’ jew estratti min dawn il-kotba jew rekords:’], Slovak [‘c) vyhotoviť alebo získať akékoľvek kópie formulárov alebo výťahov z obchodných kníh a záznamov;’], Slovenian [‘(c) odvzamejo in pridobijo, ne glede na obliko, kopije ali izvlečke iz poslovnih knjig ali dokumentacije;’] and Finnish [‘c) ottaa tai saada missä tahansa muodossa jäljennöksiä ja otteita kirjanpidosta tai asiakirjoista;’]. 23 That is true of the following versions: Danish [‘c) at tage eller få kopi eller udskrift under enhver form af sådanne bøger eller forretningspapirer’], Croatian [‘(c) uzeti ili zahtijevati u bilo kojem obliku primjerke ili izvatke iz navedenih poslovnih knjiga ili poslovne dokumentacije;’], Swedish [‘c) göra eller erhålla alla former av kopior av eller utdrag ur sådana räkenskaper och affärshandlingar,’], Slovak [‘c) vyhotoviť alebo získať akékoľvek kópie formulárov alebo výťahov z obchodných kníh a záznamov;’] and Slovenian [‘(c) odvzamejo in pridobijo, ne glede na obliko, kopije ali izvlečke iz poslovnih knjig ali dokumentacije;’]. 24 ‘c) Tirar ou obter sob qualquer forma cópias ou extractos dos documentos controlados;’. 25 See judgments of 12 November 1969, Stauder (29/69, EU:C:1969:57, paragraph 3); of 3 October 2013, Confédération paysanne (C‑298/12, EU:C:2013:630, paragraph 22); and of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International and Puma (C‑659/13 and C‑34/14, EU:C:2016:74, paragraph 122). 26 See judgments of 14 June 2012, Banco Español de Crédito (C‑618/10, EU:C:2012:349, paragraph 61); of 14 January 2016, Vodafone (C‑395/14, EU:C:2016:9, paragraph 40); and of 25 January 2018, Commission v Czech Republic (C‑314/16, EU:C:2018:42, paragraph 47). 27 See judgments of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission (46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337, paragraph 25); of 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères (C‑94/00, EU:C:2002:603, paragraph 42); and of 25 June 2014, Nexans and Nexans France v Commission (C‑37/13 P, EU:C:2014:2030, paragraph 33). 28 See judgments of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission (46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337, paragraph 15), and of 7 January 2004, Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission (C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P and C‑219/00 P, EU:C:2004:6, paragraph 63); see also judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012, Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (T‑135/09, EU:T:2012:596, paragraph 41). 29 See judgments of 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères (C‑94/00, EU:C:2002:603, paragraph 44), and of 18 June 2015, Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (C‑583/13 P, EU:C:2015:404, paragraph 31). 30 For details, see judgment of 25 June 2014, Nexans and Nexans France v Commission (C‑37/13 P, EU:C:2014:2030, paragraphs 35 to 37 and the case-law cited), and my Opinion in Nexans and Nexans France v Commission (C‑37/13 P, EU:C:2014:223, points 48 and 49 and the case-law cited). 31 See judgments of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission (46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337, paragraph 27), and of 17 October 1989, Dow Benelux v Commission (85/87, EU:C:1989:379, paragraph 38); see also order of 17 November 2005, Minoan Lines v Commission (C‑121/04 P, not published, EU:C:2005:695, paragraph 36). 32 See judgments of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission (46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337, paragraph 29); of 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères (C‑94/00, EU:C:2002:603, paragraph 47); of 25 June 2014, Nexans and Nexans France v Commission (C‑37/13 P, EU:C:2014:2030, paragraph 34); and of 30 January 2020, České dráhy v Commission (C‑538/18 P and C‑539/18 P, EU:C:2020:53, paragraphs 40 to 43); see also my Opinion in Nexans and Nexans France v Commission (C‑37/13 P, EU:C:2014:223, points 44 and 52 and the case-law cited). 33 See my Opinion in Nexans and Nexans France v Commission (C‑37/13 P, EU:C:2014:223, points 43 and 52). 34 See, to that effect, judgments of 17 October 1989, Dow Benelux v Commission (85/87, EU:C:1989:379, paragraphs 17 and 18); of 15 October 2002, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission (C‑238/99 P, C‑244/99 P, C‑245/99 P, C‑247/99 P, C‑250/99 P to C‑252/99 P and C‑254/99 P, EU:C:2002:582, paragraph 300); of 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères (C‑94/00, EU:C:2002:603, paragraph 48); of 18 June 2015, Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (C‑583/13 P, EU:C:2015:404, paragraphs 58 and 60); and of 30 January 2020, České dráhy v Commission (C‑538/18 P and C‑539/18 P, EU:C:2020:53, paragraph 99). 35 See, to that effect, judgments of 17 October 1989, Dow Benelux v Commission (85/87, EU:C:1989:379, paragraph 19); of 15 October 2002, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission (C‑238/99 P, C‑244/99 P, C‑245/99 P, C‑247/99 P, C‑250/99 P to C‑252/99 P and C‑254/99 P, EU:C:2002:582, paragraphs 301 to 305); and of 18 June 2015, Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (C‑583/13 P, EU:C:2015:404, paragraph 59). 36 See above, point 28 of the present Opinion. 37 See judgments of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission (46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337, paragraph 19), and of 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères (C‑94/00, EU:C:2002:603, paragraph 27); see also order of 17 November 2005, Minoan Lines v Commission (C‑121/04 P, not published, EU:C:2005:695, paragraph 30). 38 See, to that effect, judgments of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission (46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337, paragraph 28); of 17 October 1989, Dow Benelux v Commission (85/87, EU:C:1989:379, paragraph 19); and of 18 June 2015, Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (C‑583/13 P, EU:C:2015:404, paragraphs 28 et seq. and 59); see also judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013, Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (T‑289/11, T‑290/11 and T‑521/11, EU:T:2013:404, paragraphs 79 to 84). 39 Case C‑601/18 P; see above, footnote 3 of the present Opinion. 40 With regard to the conduct of the inspection in the present case, see above, points 23 to 28 of the present Opinion. 41 See above, points 24 to 26 of the present Opinion. 42 See, to that effect, judgments of 17 October 1989, Dow Benelux v Commission (85/87, EU:C:1989:379, paragraph 19), and of 18 June 2015, Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (C‑583/13 P, EU:C:2015:404, paragraph 59); see also order of 17 November 2005, Minoan Lines v Commission (C‑121/04 P, not published, EU:C:2005:695, paragraph 36). 43 See above, point 53 of the present Opinion and the case-law cited. 44 See above, points 23 to 26 of the present Opinion. 45 See above, in particular points 57 to 63 of the present Opinion. 46 See above, points 54 to 57 of the present Opinion and the case-law cited. 47 See above, points 23 to 28 of the present Opinion, and paragraphs 63 and 81 of the judgment under appeal. 48 See, to that effect, judgments of 21 September 1989, Hoechst v Commission (46/87 and 227/88, EU:C:1989:337, paragraph 19), and of 22 October 2002, Roquette Frères (C‑94/00, EU:C:2002:603, paragraphs 27, 50, 52 and 76 to 80); see also, with regard to requests for information made to undertakings, Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Italmobiliare v Commission (C‑268/14 P, EU:C:2015:697, point 96 et seq.). 49 Council Regulation of 6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962(I), p. 87). 50 See paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal. 51 Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2003, Minoan Lines v Commission (T‑66/99, EU:T:2003:337, paragraph 83); confirmed by order of 17 November 2005, Minoan Lines v Commission (C‑121/04 P, not published, EU:C:2005:695). 52 See above, points 28, 59, 62, 82 and 83 of the present Opinion. 53 See above, point 91 of the present Opinion. 54 Judgments of 17 December 1998, Baustahlgewebe v Commission (C‑185/95 P, EU:C:1998:608, paragraph 128); of 28 June 2005, Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission (C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02 P, EU:C:2005:408, paragraph 244); and of 26 September 2018, Infineon Technologies v Commission (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773, paragraph 192). 55 OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2. 56 Judgments of 15 October 2002, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission (C‑238/99 P, C‑244/99 P, C‑245/99 P, C‑247/99 P, C‑250/99 P to C‑252/99 P and C‑254/99 P, EU:C:2002:582, paragraph 692); of 8 December 2011, Chalkor v Commission (C‑386/10 P, EU:C:2011:815, paragraph 63); and of 26 September 2018, Infineon Technologies v Commission (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773, paragraph 193). 57 Judgments of 8 December 2011, Chalkor v Commission (C‑386/10 P, EU:C:2011:815, paragraph 64); of 10 July 2014, Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑295/12 P, EU:C:2014:2062, paragraph 213); and of 26 September 2018, Infineon Technologies v Commission (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773, paragraph 194). 58 Judgments of 10 July 2014, Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑295/12 P, EU:C:2014:2062, paragraph 200); of 26 January 2017, Villeroy & Boch Austria v Commission (C‑626/13 P, EU:C:2017:54, paragraph 82); and of 26 September 2018, Infineon Technologies v Commission (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773, paragraph 195). 59 See point 22 et seq. of my Opinion in the case of Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO (C‑766/18 P, EU:C:2019:881), for a detailed discussion of a very similar situation (with additional references); in that case the language version of the judgment of the General Court which contained an error was rectified, see Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (T‑328/17, not published, EU:T:2019:662). 60 See, to that effect, judgments of 11 July 2013, Ziegler v Commission (C‑439/11 P, EU:C:2013:513, paragraph 124), and Team Relocations and Others v Commission (C‑444/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:464, paragraph 125); of 26 January 2017, Dornbracht v Commission (C‑604/13 P, EU:C:2017:45, paragraph 75); and of 26 September 2018, Philips and Philips France v Commission (C‑98/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:774, paragraph 103). 61 Judgment of 26 September 2018, Philips and Philips France v Commission (C‑98/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:774, paragraph 105). 62 Judgment of 26 September 2018 (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773). 63 Judgment of 26 September 2018, Infineon Technologies v Commission (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773, paragraphs 206 and 207). 64 See, explicitly, judgment of 26 September 2018, Philips and Philips France v Commission (C‑98/17 P, not published, EU:C:2018:774, paragraph 104). 65 See judgment of 26 September 2018, Infineon Technologies v Commission (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773, paragraphs 201 and 203). 66 See judgment of 26 September 2018, Infineon Technologies v Commission (C‑99/17 P, EU:C:2018:773, paragraphs 210 and 211). 67 See above, points 11 and 12 of the present Opinion.