Case T‑408/10

(publication by extracts)

Roca Sanitario, SA

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity of the infringement — Multipliers — Mitigating circumstances — Reduction of the fine — Significant added value)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 16 September 2013

1.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Documents annexed to the application — Admissibility — Conditions

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))

2.      Actions for annulment — Actions brought separately by a parent company and its subsidiary against a Commission decision imputing the subsidiary’s infringement to its parent company — Account taken by the Court in the action brought by the parent company of the outcome of the action brought by the subsidiary — Parent company’s pleas seeking to benefit from any reduction in the amount of the fine granted to one of its subsidiaries — No infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita

(Arts 101(1) TFEU and 263 TFEU)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 193-195)

2.      In competition matters, when the parent company has not actually participated in the cartel and is held liable solely on account of its subsidiary’s participation therein, the parent’s liability is regarded as purely derivative, secondary and dependent on that of its subsidiary and cannot therefore exceed the liability of the subsidiary. Consequently, in the context of an annulment action brought by a parent company against a Commission decision imputing to that parent company liability for an infringement committed by one of its subsidiaries and holding it jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary, the General Court may, without ruling ultra petita, apply to that parent company, in so far as it has formally pleaded to that effect, any reduction in the amount of the fine which may have been granted to its subsidiary in an annulment action brought in parallel by the subsidiary against the same decision.

(see paras 201, 203, 207, 211)