The General Court of the European Union has dismissed the appeal brought by truck manufacturer Scania filed against the European Commission’s September 2017 decision fining it €880.5 million for cartels with other manufacturers between 1997 and 2011 (see EUROPE 11871/7), in a judgment handed down on Wednesday 2 February (Case T-799/17).
The General Court clarifies the legality of a so-called ‘hybrid’ procedure, which combines the settlement procedure and, in a second step, the ordinary administrative procedure for cartels (Article 101 TFEU).
In this case, each manufacturer to whom the Commission’s statement of objections was addressed, including Scania, had confirmed its willingness to discuss a settlement to reduce the fine imposed with the EU institution. Following these discussions, Scania withdrew from the settlement procedure and the Commission, having adopted a settlement decision in respect of the companies that had submitted a formal request, continued the investigation against Scania.
In its judgment, the General Court is of the opinion that, in the context of the ‘hybrid’ procedure, the Commission respected the principles of the presumption of innocence and impartiality and the rights of the defence vis-à-vis the complainant.
The European Court clarifies that the recognition by an addressee of a settlement decision of its liability does not implicitly lead to the recognition of the liability of an undertaking that has withdrawn from the settlement procedure. In the ordinary administrative procedure following the adoption of such a decision, the company concerned and the Commission are in a so-called ‘tabula rasa’ situation compared to the settlement procedure, where responsibilities have yet to be established, he adds. The Commission must therefore re-examine the case in the light of all the relevant circumstances, including the information and arguments put forward by the undertaking concerned when exercising its right to be heard.
The General Court also finds that Scania has not established that the Commission did not offer, during the investigation procedure, all the guarantees necessary to exclude any legitimate doubt as to its impartiality in the examination of the case. The refusal to adopt new investigative measures is not contrary to the principle of impartiality, in the absence of a demonstration that the absence of such measures is due to the Commission’s partiality, he added.
Finally, as regards the finding of the existence of a single and continuous infringement, the General Court notes that, contrary to what Scania argued, such a finding does not necessarily presuppose the establishment of several infringements, but the demonstration that the various acts identified form part of an overall plan aimed at achieving a single anti-competitive objective.
In that regard, it finds that the Commission had established to the requisite legal standard that the collusive contacts at management level between 1997 and 2004, at lower headquarters level between 2000 and 2008 and on a national German level between 2004 and 2011, taken together, formed part of an overall plan to restrict competition in the medium and heavy truck market in the European Economic Area.
See the General Court’s judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/50 (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)