Joined opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 28 October 2004. Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) v Commission of the European Communities.
• 62002CC0057 • ECLI:EU:C:2004:666
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
(Appeal – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Alloy surcharge – Attribution of responsibility for the infringement – Calculation of the fine – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Greater reduction of the fine for undertakings which acknowledge the existence of the infringement than for those which did not substantially contest the facts – Validity)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.A –
27.
28.“Acerinox have announced that surcharges will apply from 1 April 1994 (yes April!)”.
...
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.B –
40.
41.…
...
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.C –
52.
53.
54....
...
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.D –
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.E –
95.
96.
97.…
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.‘[The Commission] cannot be criticised for taking the view that the infringement was continuous, without informing the applicants of that fact during the administrative procedure. In fact, in paragraph 50 of the statement of objections notified to them on 24 April 1997, the Commission clearly stated that “concertation began at the Madrid meeting in December 1993 and has been pursued” ’.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.‘[T]he applicant’s argument that the agreement lasted, at most, until July 1994 when nickel prices “reached their original level” is entirely irrelevant and must be rejected. Since the reference values of the alloying materials to which the infringement related remained unchanged, the inference to be drawn from the fact that, on a given date, the price of nickel reached its “original level” is certainly not that the infringement then ceased to have anti-competitive effects but simply that the calculation of the alloy surcharge then had to take account of that development.’
116.
117.F –
118.
119.
120.
121.‘Such cases may include the following:
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.“With regard to the abovementioned proceeding [Case IV/35.814 – KTN], you made a request to the legal representative of Thyssen Stahl ... that [KTN] should expressly confirm that it took over liability for any acts done by Thyssen Stahl following the transfer of Thyssen Stahl’s stainless steel flat products business, in so far as the stainless steel flat products at issue in these proceedings are concerned, and this also applies to the period dating back to 1993. We hereby expressly give you that confirmation.”
156.
157.A –
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.B –
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.C –
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
185.
186.D –
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
204.
205.
206.‘According to our information, certain initiatives have already been taken:
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.