Case T‑391/10

Nedri Spanstaal BV

v

European Commission

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for prestressing steel — Quota fixing and price fixing, market sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Maximum amount of 10% of turnover — Relevant turnover — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

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

1.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Adjustment of the basic amount — Maximum amount — Calculation — Turnover to be taken into consideration — Turnover for the business year immediately preceding the date on which the fine was imposed — Concept — Data representing a full business year of normal economic activity — Turnover not reflecting the real economic situation of the undertaking concerned during the infringement — Circumstances not, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, justifying recourse to the turnover of another earlier business year

(Art. 101 TFEU; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2))

2.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case — No need to specify all the relevant factual and legal elements

(Art. 296 TFEU)

3.      EU law — Principles — Proportionality — Scope

4.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Adjustment of the basic amount — Leniency rules — Non-imposition or reduction of the fine in return for the cooperation of the undertaking concerned — Conditions — Significant added value of the evidence provided by the undertaking concerned — Determination of the percentage reduction — Cumulative criteria — Account taken of the chronological element of the cooperation provided — Extent of the cooperation of the undertaking after its contribution

(Art. 101 TFEU; EEA Agreement, Art. 53; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2002/C 45/03, points 20 to 23)

1.      With regard to the calculation of fines imposed for infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the objective sought by the establishment, in Article 23(2), of an upper limit of 10% of the turnover of each undertaking participating in an infringement is to avoid the imposition of a fine exceeding the capacity of an undertaking to make payment at the time when it is identified as responsible for the infringement and a financial penalty is imposed on it. Application of that ceiling presupposes, first, that the Commission has at its disposal the turnover figure for the last business year preceding the date of adoption of the decision and, second, that those data represent a full year of normal economic activity over a period of 12 months.

In that regard, where, in exceptional circumstances, the turnover for the business year preceding the adoption of the Commission’s decision imposing fines does not meet those criteria and thus does not provide any useful indication as to the real economic situation of the undertaking concerned, the Commission is obliged, for the purposes of calculating the upper limit of the fine, to refer to the last full business year corresponding to a full year of normal activity. The reference to a ‘full year of normal economic activity’ is intended to exclude from consideration a year in which the market conduct of the undertaking concerned did not correspond to that of an undertaking carrying on an economic activity on the usual terms. On the other hand, the mere fact that the turnover or the profits generated in a particular year are significantly lower, or higher, than in previous years does not mean that the year in question does not constitute a full year of normal economic activity.

Consequently, resumption of activity by a competitor and increase of the turnover are not exceptional circumstances of such a kind as to justify the Commission’s referring to an earlier business year. More particularly, it is not necessary for the turnover taken into consideration to reflect the real economic situation of the undertaking concerned during the period in which the infringement was committed.

(see paras 92, 94, 95, 97, 102, 104)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 98)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 99)

4.      By virtue of points 20 to 23 of the Leniency Notice, it is for the Commission, when it determines the percentage of the reduction to which the second undertaking providing evidence of the presumed infringement is entitled, to take account of the date on which the evidence was communicated and the extent to which it provides added value. It may also take into consideration — but is under no obligation to do so — the extent and continuity of any cooperation provided by the undertaking following the date of its submission. The promptness of the cooperation and the extent of the added value provided by the evidence supplied, and the taking into consideration of the extent and continuity of any cooperation provided by the undertaking following the date of its submission, are cumulative criteria, weighted according to the context and the circumstances of each particular case, which may lead to a reduction within a band of 20% to 30% of the amount of the fine.

In that regard, the Commission is entitled in particular to take account of the fact that cooperation did not immediately follow inspections carried out in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation No 1/2003.

(see paras 120, 124, 126, 127)