Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Right to fair legal process

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

3. Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court

(Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 96/C 207/04, Heading D, point 2)

Summary

1. The principle that everyone is entitled to a fair legal process is a general principle of Community law.

That principle is inspired by the fundamental rights which form an integral part of the general principles of Community law which the Court of Justice enforces, drawing inspiration from the constitutional principles common to the Member States and from the guidelines supplied, in particular, by the European Convention on Human Rights.

In Community competition law cases, oral evidence plays only a minor role, whereas written documents play a central role.

The taking of evidence in Community competition law cases is characterised by the fact that the documents examined often contain business secrets or other information that cannot be disclosed or the disclosure of which is subject to significant restrictions.

In those conditions specific to the Commission’s investigations into anti-competitive practices, the principle that everyone has the right to a fair legal process cannot be interpreted as meaning that documents containing incriminating evidence must automatically be excluded as evidence when certain information must remain confidential. That confidentiality may also relate to the identity of the authors of the documents and also to persons who transmitted them to the Commission.

(see paras 40-44)

2. On an appeal, the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to establish the facts or, in principle, to examine the evidence which the Court of First Instance accepted in support of those facts. Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. Therefore, save where the clear sense of the evidence before the Court of First Instance has been distorted, that assessment does not constitute a question of law that can be reviewed by the Court of Justice.

(see para. 55)

3. Although, in the context of an appeal, it is not open to the Court of Justice to substitute, on grounds of fairness, its own assessment for that of the Court of First Instance exercising its unlimited jurisdiction to rule on the amount of fines imposed on undertakings for infringements of Community law, the exercise of that jurisdiction in respect of the determination of those fines cannot result in discrimination between undertakings which have participated in an agreement or concerted practice contrary to Article 81(1) EC.

However, the appeal must indicate the legal arguments advanced in support of the plea alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, failing which the plea is inadmissible.

(see paras 68-69)

4. When applying Commission Notice 96/C 207/04 on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, express admission of an infringement and, on the other, a mere failure to deny it, which does not contribute to facilitating the Commission’s task of finding and bringing to an end infringements of the Community competition rules. Accordingly, different treatment accorded to two undertakings which participated in the same infringement, one of which made such an admission whereas the other did not, cannot constitute discrimination.

(see para. 71)