C 198/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
16.5.2022
Defendant: Autorité belge de la concurrence Intervening parties: Publimail SA, European Commission
Operative part of the judgment Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 52(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding a legal person from being fined for an infringement of EU competition law where, on the same facts, that person has already been the subject of a final decision following proceedings relating to an infringement of sectoral rules concerning the liberalisation of the relevant market, provided that there are clear and precise rules making it possible to predict which acts or omissions are liable to be subject to a duplication of proceedings and penalties, and also to predict that there will be coordination between the two competent authorities; that the two sets of proceedings have been conducted in a sufficiently coordinated manner within a proximate timeframe; and that the overall penalties imposed correspond to the seriousness of the offences committed.
(1)
OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde v Nordzucker AG, Südzucker AG, Agrana Zucker GmbH (Case C-151/20) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Cartel prosecuted by two national competition authorities — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Non bis in idem principle — Existence of the same offence — Article 52(1) — Limitations to the non bis in idem principle — Conditions — Pursuit of an objective of general interest — Proportionality) (2022/C 198/05) Language of the case: German Referring court Oberster Gerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde Defendants: Nordzucker AG, Südzucker AG, Agrana Zucker GmbH
Operative part of the judgment 1.
Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding an undertaking from having proceedings brought against it by the competition authority of a Member State and, as the case may be, fined for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the national competition law, on the basis of conduct which has had an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of that Member State, even though that conduct has already been referred to by a competition authority of another Member State, in a final decision adopted by that authority in respect of that undertaking following infringement proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and the corresponding provisions of the competition law of that other Member State, provided that that decision is not based on a finding of an anticompetitive object or effect in the territory of the first Member State.