Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:74
Date: 2002-03-20
Language of the case: Danish
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Decision of the Commission;General
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful;Appeal against penalty - unfounded
Origin: Denmark

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements 
between undertakings — Onus on the Commission to prove the duration of the 
infringement 
(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) 
II - 1681 
SUMMARY — CASE T-21/99 
2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Whether Commission obliged to warn 
undertakings that their conduct is illegal — No such obligation — Consequences of 
such a warning 
3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Inapplicability of Article 6 of the Euro­
pean Convention on Human Rights — Applicability of the general principles of 
Community law 
1. If there is no evidence directly estab­
lishing the duration of an infringement 
of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now 
Article 81(1) EC), the principle of legal 
certainty requires that the Commission 
should adduce at least evidence of facts 
sufficiently proximate in time for it to 
be reasonable to accept that that 
infringement continued uninter­
ruptedly between two specific dates. 
(see para. 62) 
2. The Commission is not required, dur­
ing an investigation pursuant to Regu­
lation No 17, to warn the undertakings 
concerned that their conduct is illegal 
or of what the consequences of con­
tinuing it will be. 
However, the fact that an undertaking 
participating in an infringement of the 
Community competition rules receives 
an express warning from the Commis­
sion may have consequences on the 
assessment of its conduct for the pur­
pose of determining the amount of the 
fine. Such a warning, in so far as it 
informs an undertaking that an inves­
tigation by the Community authorities 
responsible for competition is taking 
place, may encourage the undertaking 
concerned to put an end to the conduct 
being investigated, which may lead to a 
reduction in the duration of the 
infringement, one of the factors which 
the Commission must take into 
account when determining the amount 
of the fine in accordance with 
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. 
The fact that an undertaking receives 
a warning that its conduct is illegal 
may also have legal consequences, 
since when the Commission is taking 
mitigating or aggravating circum­
stances into account, its assessment of 
whether the undertaking concerned 
ceased or continued the infringement 
depends on whether or not it received a 
warning. 
(see paras 148-150) 
II - 1682 
DANSK RØRINDUSTRI v COMMISSION 
3. Although the Commission is not a 
'tribunal' within the meaning of 
Article 6 of the European Convention 
on Human Rights, it is none the less 
obliged to observe the general prin­
ciples of Community law during the 
administrative procedure concerning 
an infringement of the competition 
rules. 
(see para. 155) 
II - 1683