Case T‑485/11

(publication by extracts)

Akzo Nobel NV
and
Akcros Chemicals Ltd

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets for heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Infringement committed by a jointly-held subsidiary — Fines — Joint and several liability of the subsidiary and the parent companies — Ten-year limitation period applicable to one of the parent companies — Decision readopted — Reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on one of the parent companies — Attribution to the subsidiary and the other parent company of the obligation to pay the reduced fine — Rights of the defence)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 15 July 2015

1.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Statement of objections — Necessary content — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope

(Arts 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27(1))

2.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Observance of the rights of the defence — Time-limit incompatible with respect for defence rights — Not permissible

(Art. 81 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 27(1))

3.      Competition — Fines — Joint and several liability for payment — Determination of the part of the fine having to be borne by joint and several co-debtors — Jurisdiction of the national courts

(Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 23(2) and (3), and 31)

4.      Competition — Administrative procedure — Time-limit with regard to proceedings — Suspension — Commission decision the subject-matter of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice — Scope — Suspensive effect erga omnes — Exclusion

(Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 23, 25(3) and (6), and 26(2); Decision No 715/78, Arts 2, 3 and 4(2))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 66, 67)

2.      In competition law, respect for the rights of the defence requires that the undertaking concerned must have been afforded the opportunity, during the administrative procedure, properly to make known its views on the truth and relevance of the facts and circumstances alleged and on the documents used by the Commission to support its claim that there has been an infringement of the Treaty. In that regard, the time-limit imposed on the undertaking to submit its observations must be compatible with respect for the rights of the defence.

Consequently, there is an infringement of defence rights and a Commission decision must thus be annulled, if the applicants have sufficiently demonstrated not that, without that procedural irregularity — that is to say, if they had had a reasonable amount of time to make their views known — the contested decision would have been different in substance, but that they would have been better able to defend themselves without that irregularity. The relevant time for that purpose is the time of the administrative procedure which led to the adoption of the contested decision.

(see paras 68, 71, 72, 77, 82)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 74, 75)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 80)