Order — ECLI:EU:C:2016:538
Date: 2016-07-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded

summary form and the Commission decision by which it finds the existence of an infringement is not necessarily required to be a copy of the statement of objections, since that statement of objections is a preparatory document containing assessments of fact and of law which are purely provisional in nature. The Commission is required to hear the addressees of a statement of objections and, where relevant, to take account of any observations made in response to the objections upheld by amending its analysis specifically in order to respect their rights of defence (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 December 2013 in SNIA v Commission, C‑448/11 P, EU:C:2013:801, paragraphs 42 and 44 and the case-law cited). 22 In the present case, the General Court held, in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgment under appeal, first, that the Commission did not raise against Panasonic, in the contested decision, evidence of which it was not informed and, secondly, that Panasonic was able effectively to submit its arguments in that regard in the administrative proceedings and, consequently, that the contested decision satisfied the requirements laid down by the case-law, since the essential evidence on which the Commission relied in order to conclude that Panasonic knew of the existence of the CPT cartel, namely the oral statements made by the leniency applicants and the documentary evidence of bilateral contacts, was contained in the statement of objections. 23 In support of that conclusion, the General Court listed, in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the judgment under appeal, the various paragraphs of the statement of objections in which the Commission refers to such evidence. 24 The General Court did not err in law in concluding that Panasonic’s rights of defence were respected. In the light of the matters set out in paragraphs 22 and 23 above, it must be held that the statement of objections satisfied the requirements arising from the case-law cited in paragraph 20 above. 25 It follows that the sole ground of appeal is manifestly unfounded, with the result that the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 26 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the appellant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Panasonic Corp. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.