Case C‑617/17
Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A.
v
Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 3 April 2019
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 82 EC — Abuse of a dominant position — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 3(1) — Application of national competition law — Decision of a national competition authority to impose one fine on the basis of national law and another on the basis of EU law — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle of ne bis in idem — Whether applicable)
1. Dominant position — EU rules — National rules — Application in parallel — Consequences — Application of national law where the Commission has not opened a proceeding for the adoption of a decision under Regulation No 1/2003 —National authorities also required to apply Article 82 EC
(Art. 82 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 3(1))
(see paragraphs 25, 26)
2. Competition — Fines — Decision of the national competition authority to impose one fine under national law and another under EU law — No breach of the principle of no double jeopardy — Condition — Observance of the principle of proportionality
(Arts 10 and 82 EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 50; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 3(1) and 5)
(see paragraphs 28-39 and operative part)
Résumé
In the judgment in Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie (C‑617/17) of 3 April 2019, the Court of Justice ruled, in essence, on the interpretation of the principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The case concerned proceedings between Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A., an insurance company, and the Polish competition authority in respect of a decision of the latter to fine the former for an abuse of a dominant position on the basis of infringements of national and EU competition law.
In that context, the Court of Justice held that the principle of ne bis in idem does not preclude a national competition authority from fining an undertaking in a single decision for an infringement of national competition law and for an infringement of Article 82 EC. In such a situation, the national competition authority must nevertheless ensure that the fines are proportionate to the nature of the infringement.
In that regard, the Court underlined that it followed from its case-law that that principle aims to prevent an undertaking from being found liable or proceedings being brought against it afresh, which assumes that that undertaking was found liable or declared not liable by an earlier decision that can no longer be challenged.
The Court therefore held that it follows that the principle of ne bis in idem should not apply to a situation in which the national competition authority applies, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, national and EU competition law in parallel and, under Article 5 of that regulation, fines an undertaking in a single decision for an infringement of the former and for disregarding the latter. (1)