Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:1030
Date: 2014-12-09
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for claims invoked in support of a plea — Grounds not set out in the application — Reference to annexes as a whole — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 158, 170) 8. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Effect on trade between Member States — Criteria for assessment — Assessment on the basis of several factors taken together, not necessarily having a decisive effect taken in isolation — Cartels extending to the whole territory of a Member State — Existence of a strong presumption that trade affected (Art. 65(1) CS; Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 161, 162) 9. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Infringement having as its subject-matter a restriction on competition on a given geographic market — Prior definition of the geographic market — No obligation (Art. 65(1) CS) (see para. 163) 10. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Participation in meetings having an anti-competitive object — Circumstances from which, where the undertaking concerned has not distanced itself from the decisions adopted, it may be concluded that it participated in the ensuing cartel — Public distancing — Restrictive interpretation (Art. 65(1) CS) (see para. 179) 11. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Adverse effect on competition for the purposes of Article 65 CS — Criteria for assessment — Anti-competitive object — Sufficient (Art. 65(1) CS) (see para. 180) 12. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Concept — Coordination and cooperation incompatible with the obligation on each undertaking to determine independently its conduct on the market — Exchange of information between competitors — Presumption that the information used to determine market conduct — No anti-competitive effects on the market — No effect (Art. 65(1) CS) (see paras 191-194) 13. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Admissibility of a global assessment of a bundle of indicators (Art. 65(1) CS) (see paras 196-198) 14. ECSC — Prices — Price tables — Compulsory publicity — Compatibility with the prohibition of cartels (Arts 60 CS and 65(1) CS) (see paras 216‑218, 261) 15. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — No binding or exhaustive list of criteria (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 1A) (see para. 224) 16. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Complex evaluation of economic matters — Commission’s margin of discretion — Judicial review — Review of legality — Scope (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, points 1A and 1B) (see paras 224, 234-238) 17. Competition — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Legal nature — Indicative rule of conduct implying a self-limitation on the discretion of the Commission — Obligation to comply with the principles of equal treatment, protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty (Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 226-228) 18. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Poor financial state of the sector in question — Not included — No obligation on the Commission to abide by its previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 242, 244) 19. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Infringements classified as very serious on the basis of their nature alone — No obligation to demonstrate an actual impact of the infringement on the market (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 1A) (see paras 248-251) 20. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Agreement not implemented in practice — Assessment at the level of the individual conduct of each undertaking (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 3) (see paras 252, 253) 21. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Classification of an infringement as very serious — Primary role of the criterion based on the nature of the infringement — Not independent of that based on the size of the product market in question — Infringement classified as very serious despite being limited to the territory of a single Member State — Lawfulness (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 1A) (see para. 259) 22. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking — Criteria for assessment — Conduct deviating from that agreed within the cartel — No such conduct (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(3); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 3) (see paras 267, 268) 23. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Threats and pressure exerted on an undertaking — Not included (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 3) (see para. 269) 24. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — No need to take account of the turnovers of the undertakings concerned and to ensure that fines are proportional to those turnovers (Art. 65(1) CS; Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 273-275) 25. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — No obligation to take account of the deficit situation of the undertaking concerned — Undertaking’s real ability to pay in a specific social context — To be taken into consideration — Setting the fine at an amount which brings about the insolvency or liquidation of the undertaking concerned as a consequence of the fine — Not prohibited in principle (Art. 65 CS; Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, point 5(b)) (see paras 278-281) Re: APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in which the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 3.58 million on the applicant for infringement of Article 65(1) CS. Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA (IRO) to pay the costs.