Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2015 — Samsung SDI and Others v Commission

(Case T‑84/13)

Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production — Single and continuous infringement — Duration of the infringement — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — 2006 Leniency Notice — Reduction of the fine — Calculation of the fine — Taking account of undertakings’ sales according to the place of delivery — Taking account of the average value of sales recorded during the infringement period

1.                     Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to 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)) (see paras 32-36, 91, 102, 172-174)

2.                     Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Concept — Criteria — Single objective and overall plan — Links of complementarity between the agreements — Detailed way in which infringement committed — Manifestations of the cartel occurring in different periods — Agreements in question concentrated mainly on their respective regions — Irrelevant (Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 40-45, 52, 55, 72, 73, 77, 88)

3.                     Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement — Undertakings that may be held responsible for participating in an overall cartel — Criteria — Joint intention between the undertakings concerned — Intention to contribute to the common objectives pursued by all the undertakings concerned — Knowledge of the general scope and essential characteristics of the overall cartel — Burden of proof (Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 42, 79, 80, 133)

4.                     Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concerted practice — Concept — Coordination and cooperation incompatible with the obligation on each undertaking to determine independently its conduct on the market — Exchange of information between competitors — Anti-competitive object or effect (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see paras 59-62)

5.                     Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission decision finding an infringement — Burden of proving the infringement and its duration on the Commission — Extent of the burden of proof — Degree of precision required of the evidence used by the Commission — Body of evidence — Judicial review — Scope (Art. 101(1), TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 2) (see paras 112-116)

6.                     Competition — Union rules — Territorial scope — Cartel between undertakings established outside the EEA but implemented and producing its effects in the internal market — Competence of the Commission to apply EU competition rules (Art. 101 TFEU; EEA Agreement, Art. 53) (see para. 141)

7.                     Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision to apply competition rules — Decision relating to several addresses — Need for an adequate statement of reasons in particular with respect to the entity which must bear the liability for an infringement (Arts 101 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 154-156)

8.                     Competition — Fines — Assessment by reference to the individual conduct of the undertaking — Irrelevant that no sanction brought against another economic operator — Compliance with the principle of equal treatment having to be reconciled with the principle of legality (Art. 101(1) TFEU) (see paras 162-164)

9.                     Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Adjustment of the base amount — Leniency rules — Reduction of the amount of the fine for cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Scope (Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 298/11, point 26) (see paras 168-170, 217)

10.                     Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the base amount — Determination of the value of sales — Sales carried out within EEA territory (Art. 101 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, point 13) (see paras 191-195)

11.                     Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the base amount — Determination of the value of sales — Reference year — Last complete year of the infringement — Exceptional character thereof — Account taken of the average annual sales value during the whole duration of the infringement — Lawfulness (Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2) and (3); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, point 13) (see paras 210-215)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) and for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it concerns Samsung SDI Germany GmbH;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd to pay the costs.