Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission

(Case T‑45/10)

‛Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for ESBO/esters 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 — Fines — Attribution of the infringement — Shareholding presumption — Duration and proof of the infringement — Limitation period — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Rights of the defence’

1. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence by the parent company over wholly-owned or nearly wholly-owned subsidiaries, including holding cases — Evidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption — No infringement of the principles of the presumption of innocence, personal responsibility and sound legal basis for penalties (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23,(2)) (see paras 133-136, 141-145, 155, 162-165)

2. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Exercise of decisive influence over the conduct of a subsidiary capable of being deduced from a series of indicators concerning economic, organisational and legal links with the parent company (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 169, 170, 176-184)

3. 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 undertakings challenging the reality or the duration of the infringement (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 188-199, 253)

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 — Burden of proof on the person concerned — Scope (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53) (see paras 293-297, 302-309)

5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Need for information — Discretion of the Commission (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18) (see para. 311)

Re:

APPLICATION 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/C38.589 — Heat stabilisers), or, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders GEA Group AG to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 — GEA Group v Commission

(Case T‑45/10)

‛Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for ESBO/esters 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 — Fines — Attribution of the infringement — Shareholding presumption — Duration and proof of the infringement — Limitation period — Duration of the administrative procedure — Reasonable time — Rights of the defence’

1. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Presumption of decisive influence by the parent company over wholly-owned or nearly wholly-owned subsidiaries, including holding cases — Evidential obligations of the company seeking to rebut that presumption — No infringement of the principles of the presumption of innocence, personal responsibility and sound legal basis for penalties (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23,(2)) (see paras 133-136, 141-145, 155, 162-165)

2. Competition — Union rules — Infringements — Attribution — Parent company and subsidiaries — Economic unit — Criteria for assessment — Exercise of decisive influence over the conduct of a subsidiary capable of being deduced from a series of indicators concerning economic, organisational and legal links with the parent company (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 169, 170, 176-184)

3. 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 undertakings challenging the reality or the duration of the infringement (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 188-199, 253)

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 — Burden of proof on the person concerned — Scope (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53) (see paras 293-297, 302-309)

5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Need for information — Discretion of the Commission (Art. 81 EC; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18) (see para. 311)

Re:

APPLICATION 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/C38.589 — Heat stabilisers), or, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;