Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2022 — Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-697/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - Single and continuous infringement - Definition - Collusive agreements relating to procurement events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers organised by two computer manufacturers)

(2022/C 294/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc. (represented by: E. Kelly, N. Levy and R. Snelders, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, M. Farley, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2019, Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission (T-762/15, not published, EU:T:2019:515);

Annuls Article 1(f) of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives) to the extent that it declares that Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 by participating, from 23 August 2004 to 15 September 2006, in several separate infringements;

3.	Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4.	Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and those on appeal, all of the costs incurred by Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. in the present appeal and half of the costs that they incurred at first instance;

5.	Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. to bear half of their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

(1) OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.