Case C-681/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. AG and Others (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Articles 5 and 23(2) — Intention-related or negligence-related conditions for imposing a fine — Impact of legal advice or of a decision of a national competition authority — Power of a national competition authority to find the infringement of European Union competition law without imposing a fine)
Date: 2013-06-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, competition law, fine, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, transport company








C_2013225EN.01002201.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/22





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt v Schenker & Co. AG and Others
(Case C-681/11) (1)

(Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Articles 5 and 23(2) - Intention-related or negligence-related conditions for imposing a fine - Impact of legal advice or of a decision of a national competition authority - Power of a national competition authority to find the infringement of European Union competition law without imposing a fine)
2013/C 225/36
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, Bundeskartellanwalt

Respondents: Schenker & Co. AG, ABX Logistics (Austria) GmbH, Alpentrans Spedition und Transport GmbH, Logwin Invest Austria GmbH, DHL Express (Austria) GmbH, G. Englmayer Spedition GmbH, Express-Interfracht Internationale Spedition GmbH, A. Ferstl Speditionsgesellschaft mbH, Spedition, Lagerei und Beförderung von Gütern mit Kraftfahrzeugen Alois Herbst GmbH & Co. KG, Johann Huber Spedition und Transportgesellschaft mbH, Kapeller Internationale Spedition GmbH, Keimelmayr Speditions- u. Transport GmbH, Koch Spedition GmbH, Maximilian Schludermann, as insolvency administrator of Kubicargo Speditions GmbH, Kühne + Nagel GmbH, Lagermax Internationale Spedition Gesellschaft mbH, Morawa Transport GmbH, Johann Ogris Internationale Transport- und Speditions GmbH, Logwin Road + Rail Austria GmbH, Internationale Spedition Schneckenreither Gesellschaft mbH, Leopold Schöffl GmbH & Co. KG, ‘Spedpack’-Speditions- und Verpackungsgesellschaft mbH, Johann Strauss GmbH, Thomas Spedition GmbH, Traussnig Spedition GmbH, Treu SpeditionsgesmbH, Spedition Anton Wagner GmbH, Gebrüder Weiss GmbH, Wildenhofer Spedition und Transport GmbH, Marehard u. Wuger Internat. Speditions- u. Logistik GmbH, Rail Cargo Austria AG

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof (Vienna) — Interpretation of the provisions of European Union law relating to cartels, in particular of Article 101 TFEU — Fine imposed on transport undertakings participating in a pricing cartel — Error of law on the part of those undertakings with regard to the lawfulness of the cartel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which has infringed that provision may not escape imposition of a fine where the infringement has resulted from that undertaking erring as to the lawfulness of its conduct on account of the terms of legal advice given by a lawyer or of the terms of a decision of a national competition authority.
Article 101 TFEU and Articles 5 and 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the existence of an infringement of Article 101 TFEU is established, the national competition authorities may by way of exception confine themselves to finding that infringement without imposing a fine where the undertaking concerned has participated in a national leniency programme.


(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.