Case C‑613/13 P

European Commission

v

Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH and Others

(Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Obligation to state reasons)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 January 2017

1. Appeal—Grounds—Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence—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—Failure to observe the rules of evidence—Question of law amenable to judicial review on appeal

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

2. Competition—Administrative procedure—Commission decision finding an infringement—Means of proof—Documentary proof—Assessment of the probative value of a document—Criteria—Declarations of other undertakings concerned

   (Art. 101(1) TFEU)

3. Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Scope of the obligation to state reasons—Duty of the General Court to state the reasons for its assessment of the evidence—Obligation to observe general principles and the rules of procedure relating to the burden of proof and the adducing of evidence and not to distort the true sense of the evidence—Infringement

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 81)

4. Competition—Administrative procedure—Commission decision finding an infringement—Means of proof—Reliance on a body of evidence—Production by the Commission of one leniency statement with a view to corroborating another—Whether permissible

   (Art. 101(1) TFEU)

5. Competition—Administrative procedure—Commission decision finding an infringement—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

   (Art. 101(1) TFEU)

6. Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Inadmissibility

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

7. Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Scope of the obligation to state reasons—Obligation for the General Court to justify any divergence between different judgments concerning the same Commission decision—None

   (Art. 256(1), second subpara., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.)

1.  The appraisal by the General Court of the probative value of the documents before it cannot, save where the rules on the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have not been observed or the evidence has been distorted, be challenged before the Court of Justice.

   By contrast, the question whether the General Court observed the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence in its examination of the rules relied on by the Commission to support the existence of an infringement of the competition rules of the European Union constitutes a question of law which is amenable to judicial review on appeal.

   (see paras 26, 27)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 28-30)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 39-42, 64)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 43-45)

5.  The existence of anticompetitive practices or agreements, within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU, must, in most cases, be inferred from a number of coincidences or indicia which, taken together, may, in the absence of another plausible explanation, constitute evidence of an infringement of the competition rules.

   In order to establish that there has been an infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU, the Commission must produce firm, precise and consistent evidence. However, it is not necessary for every item of evidence produced by the Commission to satisfy those criteria in relation to every aspect of the infringement. It is sufficient if the body of evidence relied on by that institution, viewed as a whole, meets that requirement.

   (see paras 51, 52)

6.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 96)

7.  The General Court’s obligation to state the reasons for its judgments does not in principle extend to requiring it to justify the approach taken in one case as against that taken in another case, even if the latter concerns the same Commission decision relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU.

   (see para. 107)