Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:490
Date: 2012-09-27
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Appeal against penalty - unfounded
Origin: Netherlands

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Analogous requirements with regard to grounds in support of a plea — Grounds not set out in the application — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility — Reference to the application of another applicant — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 21-26) 2. Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Evidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 38-42, 73) 3. Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Subsidiary held by an intermediate company within a group carrying on very diverse activities — Fact not sufficient to rebut the presumption (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 45) 4. Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — No infringement of principle that penalties should be individual to the offender (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 46) 5. Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — No infringement of the presumption of innocence — Infringement of the principles of proportionality and equality — Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 47-49, 51-53) 6. Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Personal responsibility of the economic entity having committed the infringement — Joint and several liability of the companies forming part of that same economic entity — Lawfulness (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 50) 7. Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Control exercised by the parent company over its subsidiary — No need for a link with the infringing conduct of the subsidiary (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 67) 8. Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly-owned subsidiaries — Additional elements referred to by the Commission — Elements required by national law — No effect (Arts 81 EC and 82 EC) (see para. 70) Re: APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Heijmans NV to pay the costs.