Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:51
Date: 1999-03-11
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (1951)
Subject matter: ECSC matters;Agreements and concentrations
Concepts: Agreements and concentrations. Interference with conditions of competition
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. ECSC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Fines — Amount — 
Determination thereof— Criteria — Financial difficulties of the undertaking con­
cerned — May be taken into consideration — Whether obligatory — No such 
obligation 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5)) 
2. ECSC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Fines — Amount — 
Determination thereof— Criteria — Tax legislation of a Member State — Not 
included 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 65(5)) 
II - 613 
SUMMARY — CASE T-148/94 
3. ECSC — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Fines — Amount — 
Determination thereof— Cases in which the fine is fixed by the Community 
judicature — Unlimited jurisdiction 
(ECSC Treaty, Art. 36, second para.) 
1. In determining the amount of the fines 
to impose on steel undertakings for 
infringement of the competition rules, 
the Commission is in principle entitled 
to take account of the undertakings' 
financial difficulties while maintaining 
fines at a level which appears appro­
priate. However, recognition of an 
obligation requiring the Commission 
to take account of an undertaking's 
loss-making financial situation would 
be tantamount to conferring an unjus­
tified competitive advantage on the 
undertakings least well adapted to the 
conditions of the market. 
2. The tax legislation of a Member 
State — in particular, legislation under 
which an undertaking is not permitted 
to deduct a fine for infringement of 
Community competition law from its 
taxable income — cannot be a relevant 
criterion in the fixing of such fines. 
3. By its nature, the fixing of a fine by the 
Court of First Instance in the exercise 
of its unlimited jurisdiction is not an 
arithmetically precise operation. More­
over, the Court is not bound by the 
Commission's calculations, but must 
carry out its own assessment, taking all 
the circumstances of the case into 
account. 
II - 614