Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:77
Date: 2002-03-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Determining the amount of the fine;Decision of the Commission;Principle of equality and non-discrimination
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Appeal against penalty - successful

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an 
infringement — Effect on the validity of the decision of a breach of the principie of 
sound administration by one of the officials investigating the case — None — 
Justification 
II - 1881 
SUMMARY — CASE T-31/99 
2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an 
infringement — Effect on the validity of the decision of acts subsequent to its 
adoption but preceding its notification — None 
3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's premature display of its 
belief as to the existence of an infringement — Effect on the reality of evidence of the 
infringement subsequently adduced — None 
4. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination thereof — Criteria •— Gravity 
of the infringements — Mitigating circumstances •— Whether Commission obliged to 
abide by its previous decision-making practice — No such obligation 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) 
5. Competition — Fines — Amount —• Reduction of the fine in return for cooperation 
by the undertakings involved — Whether Commission obliged to observe the principle 
of equal treatment 
(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) 
1. The guarantees conferred by the Com­
munity legal order in administrative 
proceedings include, in particular, the 
principle of sound administration, the 
duty of the competent institution to 
examine carefully and impartially all 
the relevant aspects of the individual 
case. 
In that regard, regrettable conduct on 
the part of a member of the team 
dealing, within the Commission, with a 
case of infringement of the competition 
rules does not in itself vitiate the legal­
ity of the decision adopted in that case. 
Even if that official did infringe the 
principle of sound administration, the 
contested decision was not adopted by 
the official in question but by the 
College of Commissioners. 
(see paras 99, 104) 
2. Acts subsequent to the adoption by the 
Commission of a decision imposing a 
penalty for infringement of the compe­
tition rules cannot affect its validity. 
That applies to the pejorative remark 
about the reputation of the undertak­
ing concerned made by a member of 
the team investigating the case, in 
breach of the principle of sound admin­
istration, where the Commission 
decision, although not yet served on 
II - 1882 
ABB ASKA BROWN BOVERI v COMMISSION 
the undertaking, has already been 
adopted. 
(see para. 103) 
3. When it is established that an under­
taking has been involved in a cartel at 
the level of the group to which it 
belongs, even evidence of a premature 
manifestation by the Commission, dur­
ing the administrative procedure, of its 
conviction that the group in question 
was involved is not of such a kind as to 
deprive the actual evidence of such 
involvement of its reality. 
(see para. 106) 
4. In the determination of the amount of 
the fine to be imposed for an infringe­
ment of the competition rules, the mere 
fact that the Commission has in its 
previous decisions granted a certain 
rate of reduction of the fine for specific 
conduct does not imply that it is 
required to grant the same proportion­
ate reduction when assessing similar 
conduct in a subsequent administrative 
procedure. 
(see para. 239) 
5. The principle of equal treatment pre­
vents comparable situations from being 
treated differently and different situ­
ations from being treated in the same 
way, unless such difference in treat­
ment is objectively justified. 
The Commission docs not observe that 
principle when, after having expressly 
recognised in the decision imposing a 
fine for infringement of the compe­
tition rules that an undertaking distin­
guished itself from the other undertak­
ings involved by not disputing the main 
facts, did not differentiate the reduc­
tion to be granted to that undertaking 
for its cooperation during the investi­
gation from the reductions granted to 
the other undertakings. 
(sec paras 240, 242-244) 
II - 1883