Case T‑475/14

Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Illegal nature of the inspection decision — Reasonable time — Principle of sound administration — Principle of personal responsibility — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Sufficient proof of the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Unlimited jurisdiction)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 12 July 2018

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Principle of equal treatment — Scope — Not possible for an undertaking to require non-discriminatory application of unlawful treatment granted to other undertakings concerned

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Gravity of the infringement — Criteria for assessment — Combined market share of all the parties concerned — Geographic scope of the infringement

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Gravity of the infringement — Criteria for assessment — Obligation to take account of the actual impact on the market — No such obligation

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Proof of the beginning of the infringement

Competition — Fines — Joint and several liability for payment — Obligation of the Commission to determine the shares to be paid by those held jointly and severally liable — No such obligation

Competition — Fines — Assessment by reference to the individual conduct of the undertaking — Irrelevant that no sanction brought against another economic operator — Compliance with the principle of equal treatment having to be reconciled with the principle of legality

Competition — EU rules — Infringements — Attribution — Infringement committed by an entity which did not cease to exist and continued by another entity which succeeded it in the economic activity of the market concerned — Attribution of the whole of the infringement to that other body — Lawfulness — Existence of a situation of economic continuity — Criteria for assessment — Relevant date for the purposes of that assessment

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility

Competition — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Commission’s obligation to play its part, using the means available to it, in ascertaining the relevant facts and circumstances

Competition — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Annulment of the decision finding an infringement because of the procedure’s excessive duration — Condition — Harm to the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned — Assessment having regard to the proceedings as a whole — Absence

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's power of inspection — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Delimitation of the geographic and temporal scope of the inspection — Absence of any date by which the inspection has to be completed — Duty to act within a reasonable time

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's power of inspection — Scope and limits — Making a copy-image of computer hard drives during an inspection — Searches in the contents of the copy-image carried out at the Commission’s premises — Lawfulness — Conditions

Making a copy-image of the hard drive of computers of an undertaking being investigated under Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 falls within the scope of the Commission’s powers provided for in Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of that regulation, since it is part of the process by which the Commission operates forensic information technology, the purpose of which is to search for information relevant to the investigation in the hard drive of a computer by means of specific software. In that regard, Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides that, in order to carry out the duties assigned to it by that regulation, the Commission may conduct all necessary inspections of undertakings and associations of undertakings. As regards the Commission’s powers to carry out an investigation, Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 provides, inter alia, that the officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission to conduct an inspection are empowered to examine the books and other records related to the business, irrespective of the medium on which they are stored, and to take or obtain in any form copies of or extracts from such books or records. In so far as the copying of data stored on a digital data carrier of the undertaking under inspection is carried out during an inspection for the purposes of enabling a search, at the Commission’s premises, for documents relevant to the investigation, making such a copy falls within the scope of the powers conferred on the Commission by Article 20(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 1/2003. Article 20(2)(b) of Regulation No 1/2003 does not provide that the examination of the books or records related to the business of undertakings under inspection must be carried out exclusively at their premises if that inspection could not be completed within the timeframe initially envisaged. It merely requires the Commission to offer, when examining documents at its premises, the same guarantees to undertakings under inspection as those required of the Commission when conducting an on-the-spot examination. (see paras 47, 48, 50, 53, 58)

The statement of reasons for an inspection decision as referred to in Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 limits the powers conferred on the Commission’s agents by Article 20(2) thereof by determining, inter alia, the geographic and temporal scope of that inspection decision. As regards the geographic scope of the inspection decision, the fact that that decision states that the inspection can take place at ‘any premises’ of the inspected undertaking does not rule out the possibility of the Commission continuing the inspection at its own premises. As regards the temporal scope of the inspection decision, the absence of any date in that decision by which the inspection has to be completed does not mean that the inspection can go on indefinitely. In that regard, the Commission is required to observe a reasonable time limit in accordance with Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (see paras 61-65)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 80-102)

In a procedure seeking to impose a fine on undertakings for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the Commission may not confine itself to examining the evidence put forward by the undertakings, but must, as a matter of sound administration, play its part, using the means available to it, in ascertaining the relevant facts and circumstances. (see para. 110)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 112)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 127-138)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 144-147)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 151-158)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 178, 228)

Although it is for the Commission to prove the existence and duration of an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU, by producing precise and consistent evidence, it is not necessary for every item of evidence that it produces to satisfy those criteria in relation to every aspect of the infringement. It is sufficient if the set of indicia relied on by the Commission, viewed as a whole, meets that requirement. As the concepts of agreement and concerted practice within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU are intended, from a subjective point of view, to catch forms of collusion having the same nature which are distinguishable from each other only by their intensity and the forms in which they manifest themselves, it is sufficient, moreover, that proof of the constituent elements of either of those forms of infringement referred to in that provision has been established in order in any event for Article 101(1) TFEU to apply. The Commission did not therefore err in finding that the infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU commenced at the time of the meeting which enabled the companies concerned, sharing a common intention to restrict competition by sharing markets, to eliminate or, at least, substantially reduce, uncertainty as to the conduct to be expected from them on the market. (see paras 195-197, 212, 215)

According to the very wording of point 22 of the 2006 Guidelines on setting fines, the Commission does not necessarily have to take account of the actual impact on the market, or the absence thereof, as an aggravating or mitigating factor for the assessment of the gravity of the infringement for the purpose of calculating the fine. It is sufficient that the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into consideration fixed by the Commission is justified by other factors capable of influencing the determination of gravity pursuant to that provision, such as the actual nature of the infringement, the combined market share of all the parties concerned and its geographic scope. (see para. 230)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 234, 235)