Case C‑616/13 P

Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Market sharing and price coordination — Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union — Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission — Appeal on the costs’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 June 2016

1. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Infringements classified as very serious on the basis of their nature alone — Obligation to demonstrate an actual impact of the infringement on the market — None

   (Art. 101 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission communication 98/C 9/03, point 1 A)

2. Competition — Fines — Amount — Judicial review — Unlimited jurisdiction — Review of legality — Scope and limits — Unlimited jurisdiction strictly limited to determining the amount of the fine imposed — No error by the General Court

   (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 261 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (31))

3. Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

4. Appeal — Grounds — Review by the Court of Justice of the General Court’s refusal to order measures of inquiry — Review by the Court of Justice of the General Court’s need to supplement the information — Scope

   (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 64 and 66(1))

5. Competition — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Annulment of the decision finding an infringement because of the procedure’s excessive duration — Condition — Harm to the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned

   (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1/2003)

6. Competition — Fines — Determination — Failure to respect the principle of observance of a reasonable period of the administrative and judicial proceedings — Infringement not justifying, by itself, the reduction of the amount of the fine

   (Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1/2003)

7. Judicial proceedings — Duration of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Dispute concerning whether there has been an infringement of the competition rules — Failure to act within a reasonable time — Consequences — Non-contractual liability — Composition of the judgment formation

   (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.)

8. Judicial proceedings — Duration of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Criteria for assessment

   (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.)

9. Appeal — Grounds — Ground of appeal directed against the decision of the General Court on costs — Inadmissible where all other grounds of appeal are rejected

   (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 87(2))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 33, 34)

2.  In proceedings applying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, the scope of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction is strictly limited, unlike the review of legality provided for in Article 263 TFEU, to determining the amount of the fine. In exercising that jurisdiction, the General Court did not commit an error of assessment in considering that the Commission reasonably set the basic amount of the fine imposed on an undertaking for infringement of the competition rules, without having to take into account the actual impact of the cartel on the relevant market.

   Moreover, the mere fact that the General Court endorsed, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, as regards the fine imposed on that undertaking, several assessment criteria used by the Commission in the decision having imposed the fine and whose legality has been previously established, cannot establish a failure by the General Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction.

   (see paras 43, 44, 48, 51)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 52)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 66, 67)

5.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 74)

6.  In the area of competition, an infringement of the right to observance of a reasonable time limit because of the length of the administrative and judicial proceedings cannot, by itself, lead to a reduction of the amount of the fine which has been imposed on an undertaking in respect of the infringement at issue.

   (see para. 74)

7.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 81, 82)

8.  A claim for compensation in respect of the damage caused by the General Court’s failure to adjudicate within a reasonable period may not be made directly to the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal, but must be brought before the General Court itself, an action for damages constituting an effective remedy.

   That said, where it is clear, without any need for the parties to adduce additional evidence in that regard, that the General Court infringed, in a sufficiently serious manner, its obligation to adjudicate on the case within a reasonable time, the Court of Justice may note that fact.

   An infringement of that principle exists in the case where the duration of the proceedings before the General Court, namely almost 5 years and 9 months, which includes, in particular, a period of almost 4 years and 1 month which elapsed, without any step in the proceedings, between the end of the written procedure and the hearing, cannot be explained by either the nature or the complexity of the case or by its context.

   (see paras 81, 83, 84)

9.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 88)