Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:71
Date: 2002-03-20
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Agreements of undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Appeal against penalty - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Participation in 
meetings held by undertakings for an anti-competitive purpose — Sufficient basis for 
concluding that, if an undertaking has not distanced itself from the decisions taken, it 
participated in the subsequent arrangements 
(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) 
II - 1613 
SUMMARY — CASE T-15/99 
2. Competition •—· Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Imputation to an 
undertaking — Responsibility for conduct of other undertakings in the context of the 
same infringement — Whether permissible — Criteria 
(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC)) 
1. Where an undertaking participates, 
even if not actively, in meetings 
between undertakings with an anti­
competitive object and does not pub­
licly distance itself from what occurred 
at them, thus giving the impression to 
the other participants that it subscribes 
to the results of the meetings and will 
act in conformity with them, it may be 
concluded that it is participating in the 
cartel resulting from those meetings. 
(see para. 38) 
2. An undertaking which has participated 
in a single, complex infringement of the 
competition rules by its own conduct, 
which met the definition of an agree­
ment or concerted practice having an 
anti-competit ive object within the 
meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty 
(now Article 81(1) EC) and was 
intended to help bring about the 
infringement as a whole, may also be 
responsible for the conduct of other 
undertakings followed in the context of 
the same infringement throughout the 
period of its par t ic ipat ion in the 
infringement, where it is proved that 
the undertaking in question was aware 
of the unlawful conduct of the other 
participants, or could reasonably fore­
see such conduct, and was prepared to 
accept the risk. 
(see para. 73) 
II - 1614