Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003.

ARBED SA v Commission of the European Communities.

C-176/99 P • 61999CJ0176 • ECLI:EU:C:2003:524

  • Inbound citations: 33
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003.

ARBED SA v Commission of the European Communities.

C-176/99 P • 61999CJ0176 • ECLI:EU:C:2003:524

Cited paragraphs only

«(Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams – Notification of the statement of objections)»

ECSC – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prohibited – Decision imposing a fine on a company which was not the addressee of the statement of objections following a procedure conducted exclusively against one of its subsidiaries – Infringement of the rights of the defence – Annulment ( ECSC Treaty, Arts 36 and 65(1) and (5)) The principle of the rights of the defence, applicable in the context of an administrative procedure, requires, in particular, the inclusion in the statement of objections addressed by the Commission to an undertaking on which it intends to impose a penalty for infringement of competition rules of the essential factors taken into consideration against that undertaking, such as the facts alleged, the classification of those facts and the evidence on which the Commission relies, so that the undertaking may submit its arguments effectively during the administrative procedure brought against it.Given its importance, the statement of objections must specify unequivocally the legal person on whom fines may be imposed and be addressed to that person.A decision imposing a fine on a company must therefore be annulled for infringement of the rights of the defence where it is established that the statement of objections was addressed not to the company, but to one of its subsidiaries, that the statement of objections did not state that a fine might be imposed on the company, that the company was denied access to the file on the ground that it was not the addressee of that statement and that ambiguity persisted up to the end of the procedure as to the legal person on whom the fines would be imposed, despite the fact that that company was aware of the statement of objections and of the procedure which had been initiated against that subsidiary.see paras 19-23

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 2 October 2003 (1)

((Appeal – Agreements and concerted practices – European producers of beams – Notification of the statement of objections))

In Case C-176/99 P,

appellant,

APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-137/94

the other party to the proceedings being:

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges,

Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 31 January 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 September 2002,

gives the following

The first ground of appeal

98 The Court concludes that throughout the administrative procedure there was some uncertainty as to the respective roles and liability of the two companies ARBED and TradeARBED, as regards both the substantive issues (see also the numerous documents in the Commission's file which refer sometimes to ARBED and sometimes to TradeARBED) and the procedural aspects. This confusion persisted up to the stage of the written procedure before the Court, since in point 1 of the application (p. 3) the applicant stated that it (and not TradeARBED) had replied to the statement of objections on 3 August 1992 (this assertion, which was described as a clerical error, was rectified by the applicant's lawyer in a corrigendum of 8 April 1994). 99 In the light of that confusion, the Court also considers that the statement of objections necessarily came within ARBED's control, that ARBED took it for granted from the outset that the Commission was holding it liable for the conduct of its subsidiary TradeARBED and that, accordingly, it could not seriously imagine that the amount of the fine which it might eventually be required to pay, as an undertaking subject to the prohibition in Article 65 of the Treaty, would be calculated by reference only to TradeARBED's turnover (see also point 12 of the statement of objections, which refers to the turnover of the ARBED group). Indeed, it even received confirmation that that would not be the case in the form of the request for information on its own turnover. 100 Furthermore, ARBED was given the opportunity to submit its observations on the objections which the Commission proposed to uphold against TradeARBED, both through its subsidiary and by the participation in the administrative hearing of two members of its legal department, assisted by a lawyer who, according to the information in the file referred to above, represented both companies. ARBED also had the opportunity to submit its observations on the imputation of liability contemplated by the Commission when it was requested to provide information concerning its turnover. In that regard, the Court has already found that the applicant could not take that request to mean anything other than that the Commission intended to hold it liable for TradeARBED's conduct. 101 Having regard to all the facts of the case, moreover, the Court considers that Mr Temple Lang's letter of 30 June 1992, in which he stated that ARBED was not the addressee of the statement of objections and apparently denied it the right of access to the file for that reason, regrettable though it might be, did not in fact adversely affect the applicant's rights of defence; nor did the applicant put forward any plea based specifically on such a refusal.

Findings of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

hereby:

Wathelet

Edward

La Pergola

Jann

von Bahr

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 2003.

R. Grass

M. Wathelet

Registrar

President of the Fifth Chamber

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 393980 • Paragraphs parsed: 42814632 • Citations processed 3216094