Case T‑441/14

Brugg Kabel AG

and

Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 12 July 2018

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Determination of the value of sales — Reference year — Last full year of the infringement — Use of a different reference period — Lawfulness — Conditions

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 — Public distancing — Criteria for assessment

Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Prohibition — Infringements — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Attribution of liability for the entire infringement to a single undertaking — Conditions — Unlawful practices and conduct forming part of an overall plan — Assessment

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 — Proof of the beginning of the infringement — Proof of the duration of the infringement

Competition — EU rules — Territorial scope — Cartel implemented or which is capable of producing an immediate and substantial effect in the internal market — Criterion of the immediate, substantial and foreseeable effect — Assessment by reference to the effects, taken together, of the contested practices

Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Access to the file — Purpose — Communication of responses to the statement of objections — Conditions — Relevance of the replies of the other addressees of the statement of objections for the defence of the undertaking concerned — Burden of proof — Obligation of the undertaking concerned to adduce prima facie evidence of the usefulness of those replies for its defence

Competition — Administrative procedure — Rules on languages — Request for information — Statement of objections — Drafted in a language other than that used by the undertaking at issue — Infringement of the rights of the defence — No such infringement

Competition — Administrative procedure — Inapplicability of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights — Respect for the rights of the defence by the Commission (Art. 6(3) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 41 and 52(3))

See the text of the decision. (see paras 38-42)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 44-50)

In competition cases, the right of access to the file means that the Commission must give the undertaking concerned the opportunity to examine all the documents in the investigation file which may be relevant for its defence. Those documents include both incriminating evidence and exculpatory evidence, save where the business secrets of other undertakings, the internal documents of the Commission or other confidential information are involved. The other parties’ replies to the statement of objections are not however, in principle, included in the documents of the investigation file that the parties may consult. Nevertheless, if a passage in a reply of another party to a statement of objections or in a document annexed to such a reply may be relevant for the defence of an undertaking in that it enables that company to invoke evidence which is not consistent with the inferences made at that stage by the Commission, it constitutes exculpatory evidence. In that case, the undertaking concerned must be authorised to examine the passage or the document concerned and to give its view thereon. It is nevertheless for that undertaking to adduce prima facie evidence that the replies of the other addressees of the statement of objections would be useful for its defence. (see paras 67, 68, 70, 80, 81)

The application of Article 101 TFEU is justified (i) when the practices which it covers are implemented on the territory of the internal market, irrespective of where they are formed and (ii) when it is foreseeable that such practices will produce an immediate and substantial effect in the internal market. Those conditions governing the application of Article 101 TFEU are alternative and not cumulative means of establishing the Commission’s jurisdiction to find and penalise an infringement of that provision. Thus, as regards practices and agreements that serve the same anti-competitive objective which are implemented outside the territory of the EU, Article 101 TFEU may apply, provided that it is foreseeable that, taken together, those practices and agreements have immediate and substantial effects in the internal market. In that regard, undertakings cannot be allowed to avoid the application of the EU competition rules by combining a number of types of conduct that pursue the same objective, each of which, taken on its own, is not capable of producing an immediate and substantial effect in that market, but which, taken together, are capable of producing such an effect. (see paras 96-98, 106)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 118-121, 175, 213)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 124-126, 140, 216, 217, 223)

In cartel matters, it is indeed the understanding which the other participants in a cartel have of the intention of the undertaking concerned that is of critical importance when assessing whether that undertaking sought to distance itself from the unlawful agreement. (see para. 210)

As regards the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the value of sales used in calculating a fine imposed for infringement of the competition rules, point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines provides that the Commission will normally take the sales made by the undertaking concerned during the last full business year of its participation in the infringement. The use of the expression ‘will normally take the sales made by the undertaking during the last full business year of its participation in the infringement’ does not, however, preclude the possibility that the Commission may use a different reference period provided that that period allows it to obtain figures that are as comparable as possible. To the extent to which reliance is to be placed on the turnover of the undertakings involved in the same infringement for the purpose of determining the proportions between the fines to be imposed, the period to be taken into consideration must be ascertained in such a way that the resulting turnovers are as comparable as possible. The use of a reference year common to all the undertakings involved in the same infringement makes it possible, as a general rule, to determine the fines in a uniform manner in accordance with the principle of equality, while enabling the scale of the infringement committed to be assessed in the light of the economic reality as it appeared during the relevant period. In that context, an individual undertaking cannot compel the Commission to rely, in its case, upon a period different from that used for the other undertakings, unless it proves that, for reasons peculiar to it, its turnover in the latter period does not reflect its true size and economic power or the scale of the infringement which it committed. (see paras 238-240, 243, 244)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 298)