Brussels, 29/03/2011 (Agence Europe) - On 29 March the Court of Justice upheld the Commission's fines on ArcelorMittal Luxembourg (formerly Arbed) of €10 million and ThyssenKrupp Nirosta (formerly ThyssenKrupp Stainless) of €3.17 million for having participated in a cartel in the steel market. The decision confirms that the Commission may, after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, apply procedural rules adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty to infringements of the ECSC Treaty.
This ruling in Cases C-201/09 P, C-216/09 P and C-352/09 P is the result of a long legal battle in which the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) and the Court of Justice annulled (in 2003 and 2005) the decisions taken in 1994 and 1998 by the Commission against these two undertakings on the grounds of breaches of the rights of the defence.
The Commission applied the substantive rules of the ECSC Treaty (this treaty expired in 2002), the Commission thereupon decided to bring fresh proceedings in respect of those infringements of the ECSC Treaty. The regulation was adopted after the expiration of the ECSC Treaty but based on the EC Treaty. The Commission decided to impose new fines in 2006 (see above). The General Court rejected the appeals made by these two undertakings against these decisions, except for the part involving the ArcelorMittal Luxembourg subsidiaries (ruling against the infringement against them).
At the Court of Justice, Arcelor Mittal Luxembourg and ThyssenKrupp challenged in particular the General Court's finding that the Commission was entitled to fine them, after the expiration of the ECSC Treaty, for infringements committed before the expiration of the ECSC Treaty, on the basis of the substantive rules of the ECSC Treaty combined with the procedural rules and rules on competence subsequently adopted under the EC Treaty (EC Regulation1/2003 on rules for implementing competition).
In this decision, the European Court of Justice considers that the standards included in the ECSC Treaty are still applicable even though this treaty has expired and that it is a competency of the Commission to ensure standard application of it under the EC Treaty. The ECSC Treaty included material rules and the legal basis for the imposed sanctions, in a way that it was not possible for the two undertakings to be unaware of the consequences of their behaviour at the time of the events or count on the fact that the succession of the legal framework of the EC Treaty to that of the ECSC Treaty would have the consequence of allowing it to escape all penalties.
The Court concludes, therefore, that the Commission's power to impose the fines did indeed derive from rules adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty and that the procedure had to be conducted in accordance with those rules. It finds, secondly, that the substantive law laying down the penalty applicable was indeed that of the ECSC Treaty. Consequently, the Court rejects the grounds of appeal and upholds the judgments of the General Court. (F.G./transl.fl)