EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019TJ0251

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2022.
Wieland-Werke AG v European Commission.
Competition – Concentrations – Market for rolled products and pre-rolled strip made of copper and copper alloys – Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement – Commitments – Relevant market – Assessment of the horizontal and vertical effects of the transaction on competition – Manifest error of assessment – Principle of good administration – Rights of the defence.
Case T-251/19.

Court reports – general

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2022:296

 Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2022 –
Wieland-Werke v Commission

(Case T‑251/19) ( 1 )

(Competition – Concentrations – Market for rolled products and pre-rolled strip made of copper and copper alloys – Decision declaring the concentration incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement – Commitments – Relevant market – Assessment of the horizontal and vertical effects of the transaction on competition – Manifest error of assessment – Principle of good administration – Rights of the defence)

1. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Definition of the market in question – Criteria – Substitutability of products – Information needed for an assessment

(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 2; Commission Notice 97/C 372/03, point 2)

(see paras 34, 37, 39-43, 47-55)

2. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Definition of the market in question – Notice on market definition – Effect binding on the Commission

(Commission Notice 97/C 372/03)

(see paras 38, 55)

3. 

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea – Abstract statement – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 59, 60)

4. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Creation or reinforcement of a dominant position significantly hindering effective competition in the internal market – Assessment of the anti-competitive effects of the transaction on certain market segments at issue – Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 2(3))

(see paras 64-73, 157)

5. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Examination by the Commission – Effect of Commission’s previous decision-making practice – None

(Council Regulation No 139/2004)

(see paras 78, 79, 223, 428, 429, 438)

6. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Examination by the Commission – Assessment of anticompetitive effects – Concentration with horizontal and non-horizontal effects – Assessment of vertical effects – Criteria – Assessment of the said effects in the light of the horizontal anti-competitive effects – Scope

(Commission Notices 2004/C 31/03, point 36, and 2008/C 265/07, points 7, 18 and 78)

(see paras 84-91, 443-446)

7. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Examination by the Commission – Commission Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the internal market – Decision based on a series of indicators – Probative value – Scope – Dispute as to the reliability of the evidence used – Burden of proof

(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 2 and 8)

(see paras 116-121, 132, 135, 141, 143, 150, 162-165, 186, 213, 228, 231, 249, 291, 306, 307, 325, 343, 451)

8. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Concentration between undertakings operating on the market for rolled products and pre-rolled strip made of copper and copper alloys – Close competitors – Meaning

(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 11; Commission Notice 2004/C 31/03, point 28)

(see paras 126-131)

9. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Assessment of the compatibility with the internal market – Creation or reinforcement of a dominant position significantly hindering effective competition in the internal market – Burden of proof on the Commission – Discretion of the Commission – Obligation to take into account the commitments offered by the undertakings concerned in order to render the notified transaction compatible with the internal market

(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 8(2); Commission Notice 2008/C 267/01, point 5)

(see paras 461, 462, 477-483, 491-494, 496)

10. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Commitments of the undertakings concerned capable of rendering the notified operation compatible with the internal market – Criteria – Discretion of the Commission – Duty of diligence – Compliance with the principle of sound administration – Obligation for the Commission to consult market participants on all proposed commitments – None)

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 6(2) and 8(2); Commission Notice 2008/C 267/01, points 7 to 9)

(see paras 501-523, 663-665, 677)

11. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Commitments of the undertakings concerned capable of rendering the notified operation compatible with the internal market – Criteria – Discretion of the Commission – Principle of sound administration – Requirement of impartiality – Infringement – Consequence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 139/2004)

(see paras 630-638, 640-648)

12. 

Concentrations between undertakings – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Necessary content – Observance of the rights of the defence – Relevance of the finding, subsequent to the communication of the statement of objections, of the existence of a competition problem omitted or insufficiently referred to therein – Right of undertakings to be heard – Scope

(Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 18(3); Commission Regulation No 802/2004, Art. 13(2))

(see paras 685-699)

Operative part

The Court:

1. 

Dismisses the action;

2. 

Orders Wieland-Werke AG to pay the costs.


( 1 ) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

Top