EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62006CJ0266

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008.
Evonik Degussa GmbH v Commission of the European Communities.
Appeal - Competition - Cartel - Market in methionine - Fine - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Nulla poena sine lege - Distortion of the facts - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment.
Case C-266/06 P.

European Court Reports 2008 I-00081*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2008:295





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 – Degussa v Commission

(Case C-266/06 P)

Appeal – Competition – Cartel – Market in methionine – Fine – Regulation No 17 – Article 15(2) – Nulla poena sine lege – Distortion of the facts – Principle of proportionality – Principle of equal treatment

1.                     Community law – General legal principles – Legal certainty – Nulla poena sine lege – Scope (see paras 38-40, 44-46)

2.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion conferred on the Commission by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 50-62)

3.                     Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 72-74, 86, 94)

4.                     Appeals – Jurisdiction of the Court – Whether it may review, on grounds of fairness, the appraisal at first instance of the amount of a fine imposed on an undertaking – Not included – Whether it may review that appraisal on the ground that the principle of non-discrimination was infringed – Included (Art. 81(1), EC; Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 95, 114)

5.                     Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – Admissibility – Reliance by the Court of First Instance on implied reasoning – Whether lawful – Conditions (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36, 53, first para., and 58, first para.) (see paras 102-103)

6.                     Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Need to distinguish between the undertakings involved in the same infringement according to their total turnover – None (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2); Commission Notice 98/C 9/03, para. 1A, fifth subpara.) (see paras 119-123)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission , in which that Court dismissed in part the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2003/674/EC of 2 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 1) – Cartel concerning the market in methionine – Requirements of the principle of nulla poena sine lege in relation to the system of fines laid down by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

2.

Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH to bear the costs;

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs.

Top