CELEX: 62005TJ0011
Language: en
Date: 2010-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010.#Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG v European Commission.#Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances.#Case T-11/05.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 – Wieland‑Werke and Others v Commission 
      (Case T-11/05)
      Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper plumbing tube industry – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Continuous and multiform infringement – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – Ne bis in idem principle – Fines – Actual impact on the market – Size of the relevant market – Duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances
      1.                     Community law – General principles of Community law – Legal certainty – Principle that penalties must have a proper legal
            basis (see paras 58-63)
      2.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003
            – Infringement of the principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – None (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)
            and (3)) (see paras 64-72)
      3.                     Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Previous decision finding an infringement
            committed by the same undertaking – Infringements concerning markets for different though related products – No links of conditionality
            or coordination between the two infringements – No overall plan designed to distort competition – No identity of the infringements
            forming the subject-matter of the two decisions – Breach of the ne bis in idem principle – None (Art. 81 EC) (see paras 81-83,
            87)
      4.                     Competition – Administrative procedure – Powers of the Commission – Power to split a procedure (Art. 81 EC) (see para. 101)
      5.                     Competition – Fines – Guidelines on the method of setting fines – Calculation method taking various elements of flexibility
            into account (Art. 229 EC; Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C
            9/03) (see paras 108-112)
      6.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Assessment – Obligation to penalise more lightly an undertaking
            which simultaneously participated in several infringements – None (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15, and No 1/2003, Art.
            23) (see paras 114-115)
      7.                     Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content (Council Regulations No 17 and No 1/2003)
            (see paras 129-131)
      8.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Horizontal cartel concerning prices
            – Market-sharing arrangement – Very serious infringement (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15, and No 1/2003,
            Art. 23) (see paras 138-140)
      9.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Actual impact on the market to be
            taken into account (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15, and No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section
            1A) (see paras 143-149)
      10.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Size of the market for the products
            in question – To be taken into consideration (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission
            Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see paras 160-163)
      11.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Observance of the principle of proportionality
            (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see para. 166)
      12.                     Competition – Fines – Decision imposing fines – Duty to state reasons – Scope (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulations No 17, Art.
            15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 177, 179)
      13.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Account taken of the size and global resources of the fined
            undertaking (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section
            1A) (see paras 189-190, 192)
      14.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Duration of the infringement – Infringements of long duration –
            Increase of 10% of the starting amount per year (Council Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission
            Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1B) (see paras 203, 205-206)
      15.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances (Council
            Regulations No 17, Art. 15(2), and No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see para. 227)
      Re: 
      
         
               APPLICATION, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant
                  to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 – Copper plumbing tubes); second, in the alternative,
                  for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by that decision; and third, by way of counterclaim by the Commission,
                  for those fines to be increased.
               
            Operative part
      The Court:
      1.         Dismisses the action;
      2.         Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;
      3.         Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90% of the
         costs incurred by the Commission;
      
      4.         Orders the Commission to bear 10% of its own costs;
      5.         Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.