Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2003.
Volkswagen AG v Commission of the European Communities.
C-338/00 P • 62000CJ0338 • ECLI:EU:C:2003:473
- Inbound citations: 32
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
«(Appeal – Competition – Distribution of motor vehicles – Partitioning of the market – Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) – Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 – Whether the infringement can be attributed to the undertaking concerned – Right to a fair hearing – Duty to state reasons – Legal consequences of disclosure to the press – Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation of the fine – Cross-appeal)»
1.. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance – Failure to identify the error in law relied on – Inadmissible ( Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c))
2.. Competition – Agreements and concerted practices – Prohibition – Category exemptions – Regulation No 123/85 – Scope – Measure adopted by a motor vehicle manufacturer having the effect of partitioning the market – Excluded ( EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) and (3) (now Art. 81(1) and (3) EC); Commission Regulation No 123/85)
3.. Competition – Agreements and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Selective distribution system for motor vehicles – Call by the manufacturer to its authorised dealers forming part of overall business relations – Restrictions on supplies to dealers provided for under the dealership contract ( EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))
4.. Competition – Fines – Prohibition on imposing fines in respect of acts taking place within the framework of a notified agreement – Scope (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(5)(a))
5.. Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Intentional infringements – Establishment of intention (Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))
6.. Acts of the institution – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision to apply the rules on competition (EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC))
7.. Appeal – Jurisdiction of the Court – Reappraisal, on grounds of fairness, of the assessment of the Court of First Instance as to the amount of fines imposed on undertakings – Excluded ( EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 18 September 2003 (1)
((Appeal – Competition – Distribution of motor vehicles – Partitioning of the market – Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) – Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 – Whether the infringement can be attributed to the undertaking concerned – Right to a fair hearing – Duty to state reasons – Legal consequences of disclosure to the press – Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation of the fine – Cross-appeal))
In Case C-338/00 P,
appellant,
APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-62/98
the other party to the proceedings being:
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges,
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 27 June 2002,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 October 2002,
gives the following
for the purpose of resale certain motor vehicles intended for use on public roads and having three or more road wheels ....
.
...
....
...
....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The barrier resulting from the bonus system and the alleged infringement of Regulation No 123/85
...
The introduction of a split margin system
The barrier resulting from business conduct vis-à-vis consumers
The sanctions allegedly imposed on dealers
The duration of the barriers to re-exports
The question whether restriction of supplies to the Italian market constituted an agreement within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty
Infringement of the principle of proper administration by reason of disclosures to the press
The inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision
The excessive nature of the fine imposed
.
The first ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The second ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The third ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The fourth ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The fifth ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The sixth ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The seventh ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The eighth ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
The ninth ground of appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby:
Puissochet
Gulmann
Skouris
Macken
Colneric
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 18 September 2003.
R. Grass
J.-P. Puissochet
Registrar
President of the Sixth Chamber
Related cases
Select a keyword to display the most cited other cases
- Appeal
- Competition
- Right to a fair hearing
- Duty to state reasons.
- Cross-appeal
- Distribution of motor vehicles
- Partitioning of the market
- Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC)
- Regulation (EEC) No 123/85
- Whether the infringement can be attributed to the undertaking concerned
- Legal consequences of disclosure to the press
- Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation of the fine
