Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission

(Case T‑550/08)

‛Competition — Agreements — Paraffin waxes market — Coordination and price increases — Price fixing — 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Rights of the defence — Proof of the infringement — Limitation’

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision imposing fines for breach of the competition rules and concerning a number of addressees — Need for a sufficient statement of reasons in relation to each of the addressees (Arts 81 EC and 253 EC) (see paras 32‑36, 51, 53)

2. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Use of a single name for two companies belonging to the same group and having personnel and vertical links — No infringement of Article 81 EC (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 37-40, 54-65)

3. Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence — Undertakings afforded the opportunity to make known their views on the facts, objections and circumstances alleged by the Commission (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27(1)) (see paras 68-76)

4. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Concept — Joint intention as to the conduct to be adopted on the market — Included — Pursuance of negotiations on certain aspects of the restriction — Irrelevant (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 81-83, 136, 154)

5. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Concept — Coordination and cooperation incompatible with the obligation on each undertaking to determine independently its conduct on the market — Exchange of information between competitors — Anti competitive object or effect (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 84, 85, 125, 138)

6. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proof — Proof adduced by a number of different manifestations of the infringement — Lawfulness — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Documentary proof — Criteria — Reliability of evidence produced — Evidential obligations on undertakings disputing the existence of the infringement (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 86, 90-101, 121, 159, 171, 191, 204)

7. EU law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Presumption of innocence — Procedures in competition matters — Applicability — Scope — Consequences (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 87-89)

8. Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Probative value of voluntary statements incriminating an undertaking by the main participants in a cartel in order to benefit from application of the Leniency Notice — Statements going against the interests of the said undertaking — High probative value (Art. 81(1) EC; Commission Notice 2002/C 45/03) (see paras 102-107, 120)

9. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements between undertakings — Concept — Participation in meetings having an anti-competitive object — Included — Condition — Undertaking concerned not distancing itself from the decisions adopted — Criteria for assessment (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 123, 124, 126, 214-216)

10. Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Undertakings that may be held responsible for participating in an overall cartel — Criteria (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 127)

11. Competition — Administrative procedure — Time-limit with regard to proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Continued or repeated infringements — Day on which infringement ceased — Interruption — Inspection decision (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 25(1) to (3)) (see paras 220-225)

Re:

Principally, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;