Case C‑597/13 P

Total SA

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Infringement committed by a subsidiary wholly owned by the parent company — Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its subsidiary — Liability of the parent company arising solely from the unlawful conduct of its subsidiary — Judgment reducing the fine imposed on the subsidiary — Effects on the legal situation of the parent company’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 17 September 2015

1. Appeal — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

2. Competition — Fines — Joint and several liability for payment — Scope — Attribution of the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company — Parallel applications having the same object brought by the subsidiary and its parent company against the decision to impose a fine on them — Reduction of the fine imposed on the subsidiary — The parent company must, in principle, benefit from any reduction in the liability of its subsidiary which had been imputed to it

   (Art. 81(1) EC)

1.  In an appeal, the Court’s jurisdiction is, in principle, confined to an assessment of the findings of law with regard to the submissions discussed at first instance. A ground of appeal that, in essence, introduces a new argument challenging the adequacy of the reasoning of the General Court in the judgment under appeal rather than challenging the correctness of its reasoning is therefore inadmissible.

   (see paras 21, 22)

2.  In a situation where the liability of a parent company is purely derivative of that of its subsidiary and in which no other factor individually reflects the conduct for which the parent company is held liable, the liability of that parent company cannot exceed that of its subsidiary.

   As a result, where a parent company and its subsidiary bring applications with the same object against a decision of the Commission attributing the unlawful conduct of the subsidiary to the parent company and imputing liability jointly and severally to both companies, the parent company whose liability is entirely derivative from that of its subsidiary must, in principle, benefit from any reduction in the liability of its subsidiary which has been imputed to it.

   (see paras 37-39, 41)