Brussels, 26/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - On 26 November, the Court of Justice of the EU rejected (rulings C-40/12 P, C-50/12 P and C-58/12 P) the appeals brought by the companies Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Groupe Gascogne SA and Kendrion NV against the rulings of the General Court from November 2011, upholding the fines imposed on the three companies for their involvement in a cartel on the industrial plastic bags market. However, these companies can appeal to the General Court itself for compensation for any damage they may have suffered due to the excessive length of the proceedings leading to these rulings.
On 16 November 2011, the EU General Court rejected the cases brought by Kendrion NV, Groupe Gascogne SA and Sachsa Verpackung GmbH (which is now Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH) against the Commission's 2005 decisions fining them €34 million, €9.9 million and €13.2 million respectively for their participation in the cartel in question (see EUROPE 9079). The three companies then appealed to the Court against these decisions.
The Court rejects these appeals in their entirety. First of all, it takes the view that the Commission was able legitimately to consider Groupe Gascogne and Kendrion as jointly and severally liable for the payment of fines imposed on their subsidiaries (Sacha Verpackung and Fardem Packaging), as the two parent companies failed to demonstrate that their subsidiaries had acted autonomously on the market. The fact that the fine handed down to Kendrion (€34 million) is far higher than the one imposed on its subsidiary (€2.2 million) is justified by the fact that at the time of the Commission's decision, Kendrion had already sold its subsidiary: it was therefore necessary to calculate the level of the fines differently for each of the two companies. In response to the three companies' objection that the excessively lengthy proceedings before the Court had caused them damage which may provide grounds for the rulings against them to be cancelled, the Court replied that the three companies had failed to demonstrate that the General Court's failure to deliver judgment within a reasonable length of time could have had an impact on the resolution of the dispute before it. The Court did, however, recognise that the length of time taken by the General Court to deal with these cases (five years and nine months) was excessive, that it could not be justified by any circumstance in relation to these cases and that it goes against the right conferred upon the parties by the Charter of Fundamental Rights to have their case ruled upon within a reasonable period of time. However, the requests for compensation against the EU for any damage suffered for this reason have to be brought before the General Court itself by way of an action for damages, as such actions cannot be brought directly before the Court of Justice in the framework of an appeal. (FG/transl.fl)