Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission

(Case C-70/12 P)

‛Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for methacrylates — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Statement of reasons — Unlimited jurisdiction — General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Proportionality of the fine’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the findings of fact — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 25, 36, 37)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 27)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 39)

4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 101 TFEU (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see para. 40)

5. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Rules of procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see para. 47)

6. Competition — Fines — Amount — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction — Effect — Subject to the Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Not included (Art. 261 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 52, 53)

7. Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the assessment by the General Court in regard to the amount of the fines imposed on undertakings which have infringed the competition rules of the Treaty — Not included — Assessment called into question for reasons based on infringement of the principle of proportionality — Whether permissible (Arts 256 and 261 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31) (see para. 57)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2011 in Case T-208/06 Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission annulling in part Decision C(2006) 2098 final of the Commission of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), which concerned a complex of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates industry consisting in agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements, exchanging information and participating in discussions to facilitate the infringement.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission

(Case C-70/12 P)

‛Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for methacrylates — Duration of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Statement of reasons — Unlimited jurisdiction — General principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Proportionality of the fine’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the findings of fact — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 25, 36, 37)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 26, 27)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 39)

4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Agreements which continue to produce their effects after they have formally ceased to be in force — Application of Article 101 TFEU (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see para. 40)

5. Appeals — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Rules of procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see para. 47)

6. Competition — Fines — Amount — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction — Effect — Subject to the Guidelines for the calculation of fines — Not included (Art. 261 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 52, 53)

7. Appeals — Jurisdiction of the Court — Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the assessment by the General Court in regard to the amount of the fines imposed on undertakings which have infringed the competition rules of the Treaty — Not included — Assessment called into question for reasons based on infringement of the principle of proportionality — Whether permissible (Arts 256 and 261 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 31) (see para. 57)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2011 in Case T-208/06 Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission annulling in part Decision C(2006) 2098 final of the Commission of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), which concerned a complex of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices in the methacrylates industry consisting in agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements, exchanging information and participating in discussions to facilitate the infringement.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;