EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62006TJ0026
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010.#Trioplast Wittenheim SA v European Commission.#Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality.#Case T-26/06.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010.
Trioplast Wittenheim SA v European Commission.
Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality.
Case T-26/06.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010.
Trioplast Wittenheim SA v European Commission.
Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality.
Case T-26/06.
Thuarascálacha na Cúirte Eorpaí 2010 II-00188*
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2010:387
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 – Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission
(Case T-26/06)
Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for industrial plastic sacks – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Duration of the infringement – Fines – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Proportionality
1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission – Scope of the evidential burden – Burden of proof on the undertaking as regards distance taken from decisions taken during meetings (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 39-42, 47-48)
2. Competition – Fines – Joint and several liability for payment – Determination of the amount of fine having to be paid by the undertaking jointly and severally liable – Undertaking transferred several times during the infringement – Succession of several parent companies (Council Regulation No 1/2003; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 69-72)
3. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Assessment – Economic reality at the time the infringement was committed to be taken into account (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(3); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03) (see paras 80-82)
4. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Mitigating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(3); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 3) (see paras 92-94)
5. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Maximum amount – Calculation – Turnover to be taken into consideration – Cumulative turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, para. 5) (see paras 112-113, 115, 145)
6. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Discretion of the Commission – Total amount of fines exceeding the overall volume of the relevant market – Breach of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 143-145)
Re:
APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial sacks) concerning an agreement in the market for plastic industrial sacks and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant. |
Operative part
The Court:
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
2. |
Orders Trioplast Witteheim SA to pay the costs. |