This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0151
Case C-151/20: 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 (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)
Case C-151/20: 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 (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)
Case C-151/20: 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 (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)
OJ C 198, 16.5.2022, p. 4–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.5.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 198/4 |
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. |
|
2. |
Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that proceedings for the enforcement of competition law, in which, owing to the participation of the party concerned in the national leniency programme, only a declaration of the infringement of that law can be made, are liable to be covered by the non bis in idem principle. |