Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2014 — Reagens v Commission

(Case T‑30/10)

‛Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for tin heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Duration of the infringement — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Basic amount — Mitigating circumstances — Ability to pay — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Unlimited jurisdiction — Appropriateness of the amount of the fine’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Defence — Formal requirements — Handwritten signature of a lawyer — No obligation to sign copies in conformity with the original (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1)) (see paras 47, 48)

2. Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Obligations of the applicant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 64(3)(d), and (4)) (see paras 54-57)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas raised (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 64-68, 97-101, 108-112)

4. Competition — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Annulment of the decision finding an infringement by reason of excessive duration of the procedure — Condition — Harm to the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned — Excessive duration of the procedure not relevant to the content of the Commission’s decision (Art. 81 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1/2003) (see paras 75-90)

5. 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 — Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission — Body of evidence — Evidential obligations of the undertakings disputing the reality or duration of the infringement (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 117-127, 165-169, 178, 180)

6. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — No need to take account of the turnovers of the undertakings concerned and to ensure that fines are proportional to those turnovers (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see para. 196)

7. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision imposing fines — Indication of the factors which led the Commission to assess the gravity and the duration of the infringement — Sufficient indication (Arts 81 EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02) (see paras 215-217)

8. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Method of calculation laid down by the guidelines drawn up by the Commission — Calculation of the basic amount of the fine — Account taken of the characteristics of the infringement as a whole — No obligation to take account of other individual circumstances specific to each of the participating undertakings (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 21 to 23) (see paras 219-249)

9. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Mitigating circumstances — Conduct deviating from that agreed within the cartel — Assessment (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, point 29) (see paras 266-271)

10. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Reduction by reason of the financial situation of the undertaking — Conditions (Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, point 35) (see paras 299-305)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers), or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;