Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:445
Date: 2013-07-04
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible;Appeal against penalty
Origin: Germany;France;Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 4 July 2013 1. Competition — European Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Challenge to the classification as an economic unit — Failure by the General Cour to examine that plea in law — Error of law (Art. 81 EC) 2. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds for a judgment vitiated by an infringement of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 3. Appeals — Grounds — 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 — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts. 51, first para., and 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) 4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Infringements — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Attribution of liability to an undertaking for the entire infringement — Conditions (Art. 81(1) EC) 1. In competition law, the conduct of a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company in particular where that subsidiary, despite having a separate legal personality, does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market, but carries out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by the parent company, regard being had in particular to the economic, organisational and legal links between those two legal entities. By examining only the evidence relating to each of the subsidiaries and by failing to examine the plea in law challenging the classification of the parent company and its subsidiaries as a single undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC, the General Court erred in law. (see paras 26-29) 2. An error of law committed by the General Court does not invalidate the judgment under appeal if the operative part of that judgment appears to be well founded on other legal grounds. (see para. 32) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 47-52) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 62, 63)