Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:414
Date: 2016-06-09
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 June 2016 1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Rules on languages — Statement of objections — Drawn up in a language different to the official language of the Member State of the undertaking concerned — No harmful consequences for the undertaking — No infringement of essential procedural requirements — None (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(4); Council Regulations No 1, Art. 3 and No 1/2003) 2. 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 — Whether it may review that assessment on grounds alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality — Lawfulness (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 256(1) TFEU and 261 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Council Regulation No 1 /2003, Art. 31) 3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Maximum amount — Calculation — Turnover to be taken into consideration — Cumulative turnover of all the companies forming an economic entity acting as an undertaking (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) 4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Annulment of the decision finding an infringement because of the procedure’s excessive duration — Condition — Harm to the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1/2003) 5. Competition — Fines — Determination — Failure to respect the principle of observance of a reasonable period of the administrative and judicial proceedings — Infringement not justifying, by itself, the reduction of the amount of the fine (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1/2003) 6. Judicial proceedings — Duration of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Dispute concerning whether there has been an infringement of the competition rules — Failure to act within a reasonable time — Consequences — Non-contractual liability — Composition of the judgment formation (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 256(1), TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) 7. Judicial proceedings — Duration of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Criteria for assessment (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) 8. Appeal — Grounds — Ground of appeal directed against the decision of the General Court on costs — Inadmissible where all other grounds of appeal are rejected (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, art. 87, § 2) 1. In an administrative procedure in the area of competition, the use of the language laid down in Article 3 of Regulation No 1 is an essential procedural requirement, within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU, the infringement of which necessarily affects the validity of any document addressed to a person in another language. Where an institution sends a person within the jurisdiction of a Member State a document which is not drawn up in the language of that State, such a process vitiates the procedure only if it gives rise to harmful consequences for that person in the course of the administrative procedure. (see para. 36) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 48, 49) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 49, 51) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 61) 5. In the area of competition, an infringement of the right to observance of a reasonable time limit because of the length of the administrative and judicial proceedings cannot, by itself, lead to a reduction of the amount of the fine which has been imposed on an undertaking in respect of the infringement at issue. (see paras 61, 71) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 64, 65) 7. A claim for compensation in respect of the damage caused by the General Court’s failure to adjudicate within a reasonable period may not be made directly to the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal, but must be brought before the General Court itself, an action for damages constituting an effective remedy. That said, where it is clear, without any need for the parties to adduce additional evidence in that regard, that the General Court infringed, in a sufficiently serious manner, its obligation to adjudicate on the case within a reasonable time, the Court of Justice may note that fact. An infringement of that principle exists in the case where the duration of the proceedings before the General Court, namely almost 5 years and 9 months, which includes, in particular, a period of almost 4 years and 1 month which elapsed, without any step in the proceedings, between the end of the written procedure and the hearing, cannot be explained by either the nature or the complexity of the case or by its context. (see paras 66, 67) 8. See the text of the decision. (see paras 75)