EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TJ0422

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 July 2018.
Viscas Corp. v European Commission.
Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction.
Case T-422/14.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 –
Viscas v Commission

(Case T‑422/14)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Single and continuous infringement — Proof of the infringement — Duration of participation — Public distancing — Calculation of the fine — Gravity of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

1. 

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Means of proof — Reliance on a body of evidence — Degree of evidential value necessary as regards items of evidence viewed in isolation — Permissibility of an overall assessment of a body of evidence — Respect for the principle of equal treatment

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 44-60, 66-68)

2. 

Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Pleas different from those of the main party supported — Admissibility — Condition — Connection with the subject-matter of the case

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 142(1) and (3))

(see paras 62-65)

3. 

Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Evidence of the end of the infringement — Undertaking concerned not distancing itself from the decisions adopted — Public distancing — Criteria for assessment

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 75-80, 117, 118, 125, 126, 146, 147)

4. 

Competition — EU rules — Territorial scope — Cartel implemented or which is capable of producing an immediate and substantial effect in the internal market — Criterion of the immediate, substantial and foreseeable effect — Assessment by reference to the effects, taken together, of the contested practices

(Art. 101(1) TFEU)

(see paras 98-102, 107-115)

5. 

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Determination of the value of sales — Sales carried out in direct or indirect relation to the infringement — Account taken of sales made globally in order to reflect the relative weight of each undertaking in the infringement

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission notice 2006/C 210/02, paragraphs 13 and 18)

(see paras 179-195)

6. 

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Determination of the value of sales — Sales carried out in direct or indirect relation to the infringement — Value of sales used to set the basic amount of the fine on a subsidiary — Account taken of sales made by the parent companies — Parent company sales made on a market affected by the agreement, decision or concerted practice — Parent companies and subsidiary forming a single economic unit — Lawfulness

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission notice 2006/C 210/02, paragraphs 13 and 18)

(see paras 204-213)

7. 

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Gravity of the infringement — Criteria for assessment — Combined market share of all the parties concerned — Geographic scope of the infringement

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission notice 2006/C 210/02, paragraph 22)

(see paras 224, 227)

8. 

Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Principle of equal treatment — Scope — Not possible for an undertaking to require non-discriminatory application of unlawful treatment granted to other undertakings concerned

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3))

(see para. 248)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Viscas Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

3. 

Orders Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

Top