Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:774
Date: 2018-09-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: France;Netherlands

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Philips and Philips France v Commission (Case C‑98/17 P) (1) (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for smart card chips — Network of bilateral contacts — Exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Single and continuous infringement — Participation in the infringement and awareness, by a participant in some of the bilateral contacts, of the other bilateral contacts — Judicial review) 1. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Restriction of competition — Criteria for assessment — Distinction between infringements by object and infringements by effect — Infringement by subject matter — Whether sufficiently damaging — Sufficient — Criteria for assessment — Content and objective of a cartel and economic and legal context of its development (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see paras 34, 35, 41) 2. Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see pars 40, 70) 3. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 42) 4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment — Intention of the parties to an agreement to restrict competition — Not a necessary criterion — Taking into account of such an intention by the Commission or the Courts of the European Union — Lawfulness (Art. 101 TFEU) (see para. 45) 5. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Scope — Unlimited jurisdiction strictly limited to determining the amount of the fine imposed (Arts 101, 261 and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31) (see paras 49, 50) 6. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Permissibility of an overall assessment of a body of evidence (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see para. 59) 7. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Infringements — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Attribution of liability for the entire infringement to a single undertaking — Conditions (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see para. 83) 8. 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 — Not included — Challenge to that assessment on grounds alleging breach of the principle of proportionality — Lawfulness — No infringement of the principle of proportionality (Arts 256 and 261 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 23 and 31) (see paras 101, 107) 9. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Gravity of the infringement — ‘Entry fee’ — Factors to be taken into consideration (Art. 101 TFEU; Commission communication 2006/C 210/02, para. 23) (see para. 103) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips France SAS to pay the costs. 1 OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.