This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CJ0094
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017.
Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission.
Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Obligation to state reasons — Evidence of the infringement — Distortion of the evidence.
Case C-94/15 P.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017.
Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission.
Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Obligation to state reasons — Evidence of the infringement — Distortion of the evidence.
Case C-94/15 P.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 —
Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission
(Case C‑94/15 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Obligation to state reasons — Evidence of the infringement — Distortion of the evidence)
1. |
Appeal—Grounds—Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning and of legal arguments in support of the appeal—Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 18, 19) |
2. |
Appeal—Grounds—Inadequate statement of reasons—Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning—Lawfulness—Conditions (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 81) (see paras 20, 21) |
3. |
Competition—Administrative procedure—Commission decision finding an infringement—Judicial review—Adversarial nature of the procedure followed before the EU Courts—Obligations of the undertaking challenging the Commission’s decision (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 22, 26) |
4. |
Competition—EU rules—Infringements—Attribution—Imputability to an undertaking of the conduct of its organs—Conditions—Action of a person authorised to act on behalf of the undertaking (Art. 81 EC) (see paras 28-30) |
5. |
Acts of the institutions—Obligation to state reasons—Subject matter—Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 40) |
6. |
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.) (see paras 45-48) |
7. |
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—Proof adduced by a number of indicia and coincidences pointing to the existence and duration of continuous anti-competitive practices—Lawfulness (Art. 81 EC) (see paras 51, 52) |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the appeal; |
2. |
Orders Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG to pay the costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 127 20.4.2015.