Case T-210/08

Verhuizingen Coppens NV

v

European Commission

(Competition – Cartels – International removal services market in Belgium – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price‑fixing – Market‑sharing – Bid-rigging – Single and continuous infringement – Burden of proof)

Summary of the Judgment

1.      Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding a single infringement

(Art. 81(1) EC)

2.      Actions for annulment – Subject-matter – Reasons for a decision – Exclusion unless exception

(Art. 230 EC)

1.      The mere fact that there is identity of object between an agreement in which an undertaking participated and a global cartel does not suffice to render that undertaking responsible for the global cartel. It is only if the undertaking knew or should have known when it participated in the agreement that in doing so it was joining in the global cartel that its participation in the agreement concerned can constitute the expression of its accession to that global cartel. In that connection, the undertaking is in no way required to state, on its own initiative, the extent to which it knew of the conduct of the other participants in the infringement, since the burden of proof is borne by the Commission. The Commission must first adduce proof of a fact before the undertaking concerned can dispute this.

(see paras 30-31)

2.      The enacting terms of an act are inextricably linked to the statement of reasons for them, so that, if that act has to be interpreted, account must be taken of the reasons which led to its adoption. Although only the operative part of a decision is capable of producing legal effects, the fact remains that the assessments made in the grounds of a decision can be subject to judicial review by the judicature of the European Union to the extent that, as grounds of a measure adversely affecting the interests of those concerned, they constitute the essential basis for the operative part of that measure or if those grounds are likely to alter the substance of what was decided in the operative part.

(see para. 34)