EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
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 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. |