62019TJ0584_INF
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2022 –thyssenkrupp v Commission
(Case T‑584/19) (
1
)
(Competition – Concentrations – Market for the production and distribution of flat carbon steel – Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement – Relevant market – Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition – Commitments – Obligation to state reasons)
1.
Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Economic assessments – Discretion – Judicial review – Scope – Limits
(Art. 256 TFEU; Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 2 and 8)
(see paras 32-35, 275-277, 386, 906)
2.
Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Definition of the relevant market – Criteria – Substitutability between products – Information needed for an assessment
(Council Regulation No 139/2004; Commission Regulation No 802/2004, Annex I; Commission Notice 97/C 372/03, paragraphs 13 to 17, 20, 21, 23 to 25, 34, 38)
(see paras 36-49, 74-79, 90, 119, 120, 127-131, 141)
3.
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to apply the rules on concentrations between undertakings – Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market
(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 139/2004)
(see paras 64, 106, 225, 938, 939, 943)
4.
Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Examination by the Commission – Effect of Commission’s previous decision-making practice – None
(Council Regulation No 139/2004)
(see paras 66-69, 113, 299, 816, 895, 931)
5.
Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Definition of the relevant market – Geographical limits
(Council Regulation No 139/2004; Commission Regulation No 802/2004, Annex I; Commission Notice 97/C 372/03)
(see paras 147, 151-157, 174, 175, 181-183, 198-202, 216, 241-248, 252-255)
6.
Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Creation or reinforcement of a dominant position significantly hindering effective competition in the internal market – Examination by the Commission – Prospective analysis – Burden of proof – Obligation on the Commission to rely on convincing evidence
(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 2(3) and 8(3))
(see paras 278-289, 296-298, 324, 480, 614-619)
7.
Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Creation or reinforcement of a dominant position significantly hindering effective competition in the internal market – Assessment of the anticompetitive effects of the transaction – Criteria
(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 2(3); Commission Notice 2004/C 31/03, paragraph 16)
(see paras 374-381)
8.
Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Concentration between two undertakings active on the carbon flat steel market – Closest competitors – Concept – Indicators
(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Recital 25 and Art. 2(3); Commission Notice 2004/C 31/03, paragraphs 28 and 29)
(see paras 497-499, 504-506, 513, 514, 519-521, 740-743, 750)
9.
Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Creation or reinforcement of a dominant position significantly hindering effective competition in the internal market – Impediment to competition in a substantial part of the internal market – Criteria
(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Recital 25 and Art. 2(2) and (3))
(see paras 560-568, 671)
10.
Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Commitments of the undertakings concerned capable of rendering the notified transaction compatible with the internal market – Criteria – Discretion of the Commission – Observance of the principle of proportionality – Judicial review – Limits
(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 2(2), 6(2) and 8(2); Commission Notice 2008/C 267/01, paragraphs 7 to 9)
(see paras 761-764, 792, 793, 904, 905, 907-914)
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action;
2.
Orders thyssenkrupp AG to pay the costs.
(
1
)	OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.